sonarr_list_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only behavior, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond restating the resource name and three parameter names. There is no mention of pagination, default page size, available filters, or how this endpoint behaves differently from siblings.

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 the primary action. It uses two short sentences with no redundant prose, though it is too telegraphic to fully support invocation.

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?

The tool has a complex parameter surface and several sibling list endpoints, but the description fails to explain the pagination/filtering options or differentiate from sonarr_list_history_since and sonarr_list_history_series. The output schema covers return values, but the input side remains under-described for an agent to select this tool confidently.

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?

With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain parameter semantics but only lists three names (sort_key, sort_direction, download_id) without definitions. The remaining parameters such as page, page_size, event_type, series_ids, include_series, and include_episode are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names the resource ('download/import history'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. However, it does not contrast with the sibling tools sonarr_list_history_since and sonarr_list_history_series, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative history endpoints, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The brief mention of query parameters is not usage guidance.

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