sonarr_get_notification

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as 404 behavior, pagination, or response structure. It is consistent with the annotation but does not go beyond it. With annotations covering safety, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. The slight grammatical error does not affect length or structure.

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?

With an output schema present and simple GET-by-ID semantics, the description is almost sufficient. Missing are error behaviors (e.g., 404 if not found) or any note about permissions. For a read-only fetch with one parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does, by stating 'by id', which indicates the id is the identifier of the notification provider. However, it does not provide details about the id's source or format beyond the schema type (integer). This is minimal but sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('notification providers') with scope ('single ... by id'). It differentiates from sibling tools like sonarr_list_notification by emphasizing it fetches a single item. The minor grammatical error ('providers' vs 'provider') does not obscure the meaning.

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 like sonarr_list_notification, sonarr_create_notification, or sonarr_update_notification. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where listing is preferred. This is a clear gap.

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