parse_release

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 genuinely new behavioral context: it performs an upgrade comparison against the existing file under the quality profile and explains the reasoning, which the annotations cannot convey. Missing only minor details like whether the comparison requires the item to be in the local library.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by illustrative examples that earn their place by mapping to real user questions. Slightly more text than strictly necessary, but no filler sentences.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and it still previews the fields the agent will get back. For a 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 both parameters (title, service) are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit to query both' semantics for service. The description's example release name adds only marginal value over the schema's own example, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Show how Sonarr/Radarr interpret a release name') and enumerates the exact outputs (matched series/episodes or movie, quality, languages, custom formats and score). This cleanly separates it from write-oriented siblings like grab_release or rename_files, so an agent can select it without opening either 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?

The two example questions ('How would Sonarr score ...?' and 'Why is this release "not an upgrade"?') give clear scenario context for when to reach for this tool, plus the conditional 'if the item already has a file, compares both' tells the agent a prerequisite. However, no sibling alternatives are named or excluded, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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