sonarr_get_localization

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches the description's 'Fetch' verb, so there is no contradiction. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the read-only nature and single-object scope, but since annotations already cover safety, this is sufficient for a simple fetch tool. It does not describe error handling or return format, but the output schema covers returns.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundant or filler content, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 read-only get-by-id tool, the description combined with the output schema, annotations, and sibling context is nearly complete. It lacks elaboration on the localization domain (e.g., what a localization string contains or how language factors in), but sibling names like sonarr_list_localization and sonarr_get_localization_language provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 single parameter 'id' is an integer with no schema description (0% coverage). The description says 'by id', which clarifies that the parameter is the identifier of the localization string, but it does not explain what constitutes a valid id or any special formatting. Given the simplicity of the parameter, the compensation is adequate but minimal.

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') with a clear resource ('localization strings') and scope ('single ... by id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_list_localization (which fetches all) and sonarr_get_localization_language (which fetches language-specific data). The meaning is immediately understandable.

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 implies the use case (fetch exactly one localization by its id) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus listing all localizations or fetching language details. It provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions, relying on the tool name and the word 'single' to convey intent.

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