radarr_list_history_since

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what 'since' means for date filtering, pagination, or return format. It simply repeats the parameter names without explaining their effect.

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 extremely short (7 words), but under-specification prevents it from being effectively concise. The sentence 'List since' is incomplete and uninformative, not earning its place. It could have been improved with a complete sentence and structured parameter explanation.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, an output schema, and multiple sibling history-list tools. The description provides none of the essential context: it does not define what is being listed, how the parameters affect results, or how this tool differs from radarr_list_history. An agent would be unable to select or invoke this tool correctly based on the description.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the three parameters. It mentions only 'date' and 'event_type', omits 'include_movie', and provides no format, allowed values, or semantics for either. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List since' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, which already includes 'list_history_since'. It does not explicitly state that it lists history entries, and it lacks any differentiation from sibling tools like radarr_list_history or radarr_list_history_movie.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely says 'List since' and lists query parameters without explaining the filtering semantics or why one would choose this tool over radarr_list_history or radarr_list_history_movie.

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