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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well by explaining the media/season status enum, the Seerr vs legacy Overseerr difference for code 6, and that request statuses are separate. It does not mention auth, side effects, or return shape, but the status-code clarification is genuinely valuable for correct interpretation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by the non-obvious status caveats. The status-code detail is longer than typical, but it earns its place because the enum has version-specific meanings.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main status-code ambiguity but leaves gaps: it does not explain what the returned payload looks like, how level values affect output, or how single vs batch selection behaves in practice. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully self-sufficient.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the level enum and single/batch intent, but it adds little beyond the schema for parameters like format, fields, language, or items. The status-code block applies to returned data, not to parameter meaning.

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 opens with a concrete verb and object ('Get media details') and immediately states single/batch and level-control modes, so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_service_details, which also fetches 'details', so differentiation is left largely to the 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 get_service_details, search_media, request_media, or get_services. No exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules are given; the only usage signal is the implied purpose from the name and opening sentence.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it retrieves data but does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only (implied but not explicit).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with key purpose, no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple parameters and no output schema, description adequately lists the types of data returned. Could mention that servers from get_services are needed, but it's implied. Minor gap for moderate completeness.

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 100% (both parameters described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it lists output types but not parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resources: quality profiles, root folders, tags, and language profiles for a Radarr/Sonarr server. It distinguishes from siblings like get_media_details (media items) and get_services (list servers).

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 on when to use this tool vs siblings like get_media_details or search_media. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it fits in a workflow.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The description indicates a read operation ('List'), which is inherently non-destructive, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but could be more explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then listing return fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 simplicity of the tool (list operation with one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does and what fields are returned. No additional details (e.g., pagination) are necessary.

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 input schema fully describes the single optional parameter with an enum and default behavior ('Omit for both'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'List configured Radarr/Sonarr servers.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('servers'), and lists the fields returned (ID, name, isDefault, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_service_details' which likely retrieves a single server.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving all configured servers and mentions the fields returned. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_service_details' or state when to use this versus alternatives, e.g., for an overview vs. detailed info.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions batching and filters but does not disclose destructive nature of 'delete', side effects of 'approve'/'decline', or required permissions.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences delivering purpose and filter options. No filler, front-loaded information.

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 9 parameters, multiple actions, batch support, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. Missing explanations for format, summary, batching mechanics, and action specifics.

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 44% (only action, summary, requestId, requestIds have descriptions). Description adds filter enum values and batching hint but does not explain skip, take, sort, format, or their interactions. Partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states the tool manages media requests with specific actions (get/list/approve/decline/delete). It distinguishes from siblings like 'request_media' (creation) and 'search_media' (searching) by focusing on request management.

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?

Description implies usage for request management but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs siblings like 'request_media' or 'get_media_details'. No exclusion or alternative mention.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the auto-confirm thresholds and the season/specials semantics. However, it omits side effects, return values, permissions, and what 'validation' actually checks or does, leaving a meaningful transparency gap.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose and then provide the confirmation rules and season semantics. There is no filler; every clause conveys a constraint or a meaningful alternative.

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 11 parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description omits several parameters (serverId, profileId, rootFolder) and any response/error behavior. The core auto-confirm logic is well covered, but an agent still lacks full context for confident invocation in all cases.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real semantic value by tying 'confirmed:true' to episode-count thresholds and explaining how 'all' vs an array affects specials in TV requests, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 names the operation clearly: 'Request media' with specific auto-confirm behavior for TV ≤24 eps and single/batch/validation modes. It distinguishes this from the sibling lookup tools (search_media, get_media_details) and the management tool (manage_media_requests).

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 gives explicit usage context: movies and short TV auto-confirm, longer TV requires confirmed:true, and TV requires seasons with the specials interpretation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine behavioral value by disclosing that dedupe returns an actionable status and enumerating the six possible status values. However, it omits the most consequential trait: despite being a 'search' tool, it can mutate state via autoRequest (which creates requests), and it says nothing about read-only guarantees, pagination, or rate limits. Partial disclosure, no contradiction.

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 tight: two sentences carry purpose and dedupe behavior, and the status enum provides the output vocabulary an agent needs. Facts are front-loaded with the core verb and resource first. The trailing status line after a newline reads slightly as a dangling fragment, and the enum could be folded into the dedupe sentence, but every element earns its place.

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?

Complexity is high — 13 parameters, nested objects, zero annotations, and no output schema — so the description must carry tool-level semantics that the schema cannot. It fails to explain the interplay among dedupeMode/autoRequest/checkAvailability, does not warn that autoRequest triggers real requests, and never describes the shape of search results or pagination. The rich schema softens the gap but does not fill it; a first-time agent would be unsure what a result looks like or that this tool can mutate data.

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 100%, so the baseline 3 applies even though the description adds no per-parameter wordsmithing. The schema itself is rich — includeDetails enumerates exact field groups, autoRequest documents the 24-episode confirmation rule, and requestOptions explains season semantics — so no compensation is needed from the description. The description's mention of modes maps loosely to queries/titles/dedupeMode but adds no new meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search movies/TV' plus the mode set (single/batch/dedupe), which immediately distinguishes this from sibling get_/request_/manage_ tools. The dedupe sentence further clarifies a distinctive capability (actionable batch status), so an agent can separate search_media from get_media_details or request_media without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied through the mode names: single for one query, batch for multiple queries, and dedupe 'for batch processing' with an availability verdict. However, the description never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like request_media or get_media_details, and it offers no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The mode semantics are suggestive but not explicit.

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