search_releases

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: results preserve Prowlarr ordering, empty queries mean recent releases, and indexer_id plus guid are not yet usable for downloads. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is compact: three short sentences that front-load the main action and then add behavioral clarifications. The future-download-availability caveat is a small but relevant addition that prevents the agent from assuming a download capability that doesn't exist in this version. No sentence 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?

Given the simple parameter set, no required parameters, a complete output schema, and safety annotations, this description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly. An agent can understand the search scope, the empty-query special case, filtering by indexers/categories, and the result-ordering guarantee.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the key query semantics: empty query means recent releases, and omitted indexer_ids/categories search all enabled ones. It does not explicitly describe limit, offset, or search_type, but those are straightforward from the schema defaults and the enum values. This is strong semantic coverage despite a few remaining gaps.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('enabled Prowlarr indexers'), and the result domain ('Torrent or Usenet releases'). The empty-query and omit-filter explanations further clarify the scope. Although there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, the purpose is unambiguous and complete.

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 description clearly tells the agent when behaviors change: an empty query requests recent releases, and omitting indexer_ids and categories searches all enabled indexers and categories. There are no sibling tools to compare against, so the lack of alternatives guidance is acceptable; the exclusion of download submission capability is also useful context.

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