sonarr_get_languageprofile

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, which the description aligns with ('Fetch'). However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that, such as error handling (e.g., 404 if ID not found) or any side effects. With annotations present, this is acceptable 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 concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is slightly awkward grammatically ('a single language profiles'), but still clear and efficient.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the action and resource. But it omits any mention of what happens if the ID is invalid, whether the output is a single object, or that this complements the list endpoint. Given the low complexity, the gaps are minor but still present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. It only says 'by id', which restates the parameter name rather than explaining what the ID represents or any constraints. For a single integer ID, this is minimal, but it does little to clarify beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies a distinct resource ('language profiles') by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_list_languageprofile (which fetches all profiles) and sonarr_create_languageprofile (which creates). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that sonarr_list_languageprofile should be used to retrieve all profiles, nor does it state that this tool is appropriate only when a specific ID is known. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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