sonarr_get_language

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that it fetches a single item by ID, but it does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling or response format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. However, the grammatical error ('a single languages') slightly diminishes its polish, preventing a perfect score.

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?

This is a simple get-by-id tool with an output schema that documents return values. The description adequately covers the core operation, but it omits information about what happens when the ID is not found. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema has a single required 'id' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description's mention of 'by id' clarifies that the parameter is the language identifier, but it does not elaborate further. This is minimal compensation for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('languages'), and specifies 'single' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool sonarr_list_language. However, the grammar error ('a single languages') and lack of explicit sibling differentiation prevent a higher score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of sonarr_list_language implies this is for fetching a specific language by ID, but the description does not state this or mention any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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