get_cutoff_unmet

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 structurally. The description adds the useful scoping fact that only items already having a file are returned, but says nothing about the monitored_only default behavior or result volume. Adequate but not rich, given the lower bar set by annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core definition front-loaded and examples following. No wasted prose, though the examples could be consolidated.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation from get_missing/search_missing, plus the undocumented monitored_only parameter, leaving the definition just adequate for this query 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 coverage is 67%: limit and service are documented in the schema, but monitored_only (default true) has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 a specific resource state ('items that have a file but below the quality profile cutoff') and clarifies intent with the parenthetical 'upgrade candidates'. It is not a tautology and an agent can form a clear picture of what is returned, though it never names the sibling it is distinct from (get_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?

The two examples ('What could be upgraded to better quality?', 'Which movies are below cutoff?') give concrete usage context and map directly to user phrasing. There is no explicit exclusion against get_missing/search_missing, so it stops short of a 5.

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