explain_search

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds the critical behavioral trait that it 'queries every indexer live' and 'counts against the hourly indexer budget' – a rate/cost constraint the agent cannot infer from annotations. It also discloses the return shape (grouped by rejection reason, includes guids) beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral/cost caveats, then examples. Every sentence earns its place – the budget warning and grab_release cross-reference are both actionable, and the examples are short and illustrative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, and the description still covers the mechanics (live indexer query, rejection grouping, budget), the workflow hand-off (grab_release), and usage constraints. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents movie, series, season, and episode. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., limit has no schema description and is not explained), so it sits at the baseline for a high-coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Explain why Sonarr/Radarr did not grab something: run an interactive search and summarize every release found.' It also names the output grouping (rejection reason, monitored/aired/available checks), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like search_episodes or search_missing.

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?

Explicit when/when-not: 'use it for one item at a time, never in a loop,' and it names the follow-up path ('guids returned can be grabbed with grab_release'). The two example questions anchor the intended trigger scenario.

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