get_command_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious trait: for a finished manual import it also verifies each file actually reached the library, which an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of describing polling/eventual-consistency behavior.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the manual-import special case and two concrete example questions. No filler, though the examples repeat the intent already stated rather than adding new 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, async nature, and the manual-import verification quirk, leaving only minor gaps such as whether a not-yet-finished command requires re-polling.

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 50%: 'service' is documented in the schema (enum values sonarr/radarr), but 'command_id' has no schema description. The description supplies context that command_id refers to an earlier-started command, which is helpful, but adds no format, origin, or retrieval guidance beyond that.

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: returns the status of an asynchronous command, and enumerates the command kinds it applies to (search, refresh, manual import). The 'started earlier' framing cleanly separates it from the starter siblings like search_episodes, refresh_item, and manual_import, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 'started earlier' phrasing plus the example questions ('Has the search for S03E04 finished?') give clear context for when to call it: only after an async command has been issued and you hold a command_id. No when-not-to-use or explicit sibling routing is provided, which keeps it below a 5.

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