sonarr_get_localization_language

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read-only nature. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the list includes both ISO codes and names, or if ordering matters. It does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them.

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?

One concise sentence: 'List localization languages.' It is front-loaded, unambiguous, and contains zero wasted words.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with an output schema available. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the operation's essence; no further context is required for such a simple endpoint.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description need not say anything more about parameters, meriting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'localization languages', indicating a read-only listing operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sonarr_list_language or sonarr_get_localization, but the specific resource name makes its intent clear.

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 instead of alternatives. It doesn't mention that this lists the available localization languages for UI translation purposes, nor does it contrast with sonarr_list_language or sonarr_get_localization. Users must infer from the tool name.

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