seerr_get_service_sonarr_lookup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description doesn't add behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=true). It merely restates the action implied by the name without disclosing details like whether it requires a configured Sonarr instance, what happens if the series is not found, or the structure of the response. Since the description adds no extra value, it falls short of the baseline for annotation-supported tools.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is too terse to be informative on its own, essentially mirroring the tool name. It earns its place minimally but could be expanded to include useful details without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description still lacks essential context about when to use this 'lookup' endpoint versus its siblings. It doesn't explain the purpose of a lookup by tmdb_id, expected input, or any special behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to select it confidently among many similar tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters, but it fails to mention tmdb_id at all. The single required parameter is not described, and the description doesn't even imply that the lookup is by TMDB ID. This is a critical omission for a tool with only one parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get series from Sonarr' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('series from Sonarr'), clearly indicating the tool fetches series data from the Sonarr service. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like seerr_get_service_sonarr or seerr_list_service_sonarr, as the 'lookup' nuance is not explained, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion for a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as seerr_list_service_sonarr or seerr_get_service_sonarr. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or disambiguation, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate use case from the description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.