sonarr_list_wanted_missing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention pagination, filtering by monitored status, or that it returns a list of missing items. The only extra info about query parameters simply repeats schema metadata.

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 very short and structurally simple, with no wasted sentences. However, it is terse to the point of being unhelpful; the brevity is more under-specification than elegant conciseness.

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 description fails to explain what 'missing' means in Sonarr context, does not describe pagination or default behaviors, and provides no connection to sibling endpoints. Although an output schema exists, it cannot compensate for the lack of semantic and contextual guidance for a 7-parameter tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It names only two of seven parameters (sort_key, sort_direction) and provides no meaning or allowed values. Parameters like page, page_size, monitored, include_images, and include_series are completely undocumented, leaving the agent guessing.

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 'List missing' is vague and does not specify what is missing (e.g., episodes, series). It barely distinguishes the tool from close siblings like sonarr_get_wanted_missing or sonarr_list_wanted_cutoff, and essentially restates the tool's name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list/get tools. It does not indicate whether this is for missing episodes that have not been downloaded, nor does it contrast with similar 'wanted' endpoints. The intended context is only implied by the naming convention.

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