get_missing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the semantic definition ('without a file') but says nothing about scope of results, ordering, or how this differs from a cutoff-unmet list.

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 short lines: the definition is front-loaded and the examples earn their place by mapping natural-language questions to the tool. No filler.

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 safety. The definition is nearly complete, missing only sibling disambiguation against get_cutoff_unmet.

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%; the description explains the 'monitored' concept and the sonarr/radarr duality, but omits the undocumented monitored_only parameter and the limit cap. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the load.

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/resource ('Wanted/missing: monitored episodes (Sonarr) or movies (Radarr) without a file') and adds concrete example queries, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like get_cutoff_unmet 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?

The example questions imply when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g. get_cutoff_unmet, search_missing) covers an overlapping need. Usage is suggested, not routed.

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