sonarr_list_calendar

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds the qualifier 'upcoming' which implies a date-scoped list, and it names start/end/tags as filters. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details like default date ranges or whether unmonitored episodes are included.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists query parameters. While deeper parameter details are missing, the structure is efficient and appropriate for a tool with a comprehensive schema.

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 has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and a sibling get_calendar, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the date range semantics, the purpose of the boolean flags, or how this listing differs from the get_calendar endpoint. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter behavior remains unclear.

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. It names three of seven parameters (start, end, tags) but does not explain their format or semantics. The other four boolean parameters are entirely omitted, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 tool lists an upcoming episode calendar, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'calendar'. It names three query parameters, which adds specificity. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool sonarr_get_calendar, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions query parameters but does not explain usage context, exclusions, or compare to sonarr_get_calendar. Users are left to infer appropriateness from the tool name alone.

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