test_download_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it tests *every* configured client and reports failures with reasons, which is useful scope context, but says nothing about latency, timeouts, or remote-call side effects implied by openWorldHint.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the examples are compact and high-signal. Slightly verbose line wrapping and the pair of examples add length without new information, but nothing is wasted.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, behavior, and failure reporting adequately for a read-only diagnostic. Missing only edge-case context such as behavior when no download clients are configured.

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% and the single 'service' parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its default and 'omit to query both' behavior). The description adds no parameter detail, 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?

States a specific verb ('Test the connection') and resource ('every download client configured in Sonarr/Radarr') plus the outcome ('report which ones fail and why'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling diagnostics like get_health or get_system_status.

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 quoted examples ('Can Sonarr reach my download client?', 'Test the download clients') give concrete trigger phrases for when to reach for this tool. It does not, however, name an alternative such as get_health or state when *not* to use it, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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