sonarr_get_qualitydefinition_limits

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a read-only operation, and the description's 'List' adds nothing beyond that. There is no additional behavioral context such as pagination, response size, or any side effects. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also fails to add value beyond 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?

The description is a single, concise phrase that is front-loaded with the verb. It has no unnecessary words. However, it is extremely terse, almost to the point of being under-specified, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool, this is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the output schema, and the read-only annotation, the description is minimally complete. It enables an agent to understand the tool's basic function. However, it could be more complete by providing context on what 'qualitydefinition limits' are or what the returned data represents, though this is not critical for a simple list operation.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and none exist to explain. The description implicitly tells the agent that no configuration is needed, which is sufficient.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('qualitydefinition limits'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sonarr_get_qualitydefinition' and 'sonarr_list_qualitydefinition'. The resource is unique, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context, so an agent has no information about when this is the appropriate tool.

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