sonarr_release_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly marks `sonarr_push_release` and `sonarr_search_releases` as WRITE operations that modify the Sonarr instance, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error behavior, rate limits, or side effects beyond the modification, and the read operations are not explicitly labeled safe.

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 uses a terse opening plus a bulleted list of operations, making it scannable and concise. Each operation's purpose and params are on one line. The front-loaded sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name but harmless, and the WRITE flags are included inline.

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 tool wraps multiple operations with a generic schema, the description provides enough overview to route to the correct operation, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, there are gaps: no details on the body structure for push/search, no semantics for the optional parameters, and no guidance on how to pass arguments as a dict. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 compensates by specifying operation-specific parameters (e.g., series_id, episode_id, season_number for list_release) and noting that body carries seriesId/episodeId for search_releases. This adds meaning beyond the generic `arguments` dict, though some parameters like the body contents for push_release remain unspecified.

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 enumerates four specific operations with one-line summaries, establishing that this tool covers release-related actions (indexer flags, list, push, search). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the Sonarr release search domain, though the opening sentence is generic and 'operations' could be more precise.

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?

Usage is implied through operation examples (e.g., searching for releases for a series/episode), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like sonarr_queue or sonarr_media_library, nor any exclusions. The write operations are flagged, which hints at caution, but this doesn't substitute for explicit alternatives.

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