sonarr_calendar

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing what each operation does ('Fetch a single upcoming episode calendar' and 'List upcoming episode calendar'), which is consistent with the annotation. No additional side effects or edge cases are disclosed, but with the annotation present, the bar is lower.

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 concise, with a clear introductory line followed by bullet-style operation signatures. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the two operations easy to scan. No unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 dispatcher pattern and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient coverage by enumerating both operations and their parameters. It does not explain return formats, but the output schema likely covers that. It could add date format hints or examples, but overall it is complete for a read-only tool with clear operation signatures.

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?

The schema has no description coverage for parameters (coverage 0%), so the description carries the burden. It lists all parameters for each operation, including defaults for sonarr_list_calendar (start, end, unmonitored, etc.), which adds significant meaning beyond the generic 'arguments' object in the schema. However, it does not explain parameter formats or detailed semantics, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clearly identifies the tool as handling Sonarr calendar operations and enumerates two specific operations: sonarr_get_calendar and sonarr_list_calendar. While it distinguishes between fetching a single calendar entry and listing calendar items, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools, but the domain is clear.

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 implies usage by providing operation names and their parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context for choosing between the two operations. It is clear enough for basic selection but lacks explicit guidance.

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