sonarr_wanted

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat safety info. It adds contextual behavior by documenting pagination parameters and query params (e.g., page, page_size, sort_key), but does not describe edge cases or response details (which are covered by the output schema).

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 well-structured: an intro sentence explains the dispatch pattern, followed by a concise bulleted list of operations with signatures and defaults. It is easy to scan and does not contain unnecessary elaboration.

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 generic schema (only operation and arguments) and multiple operations, the description covers all four operations and their parameters sufficiently. The output schema exists to handle return-value documentation, so the description need not explain that. It lacks deeper context about the 'wanted' concept, but overall is adequate for invoking the tool.

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 for parameter meanings. It provides complete operation signatures with defaults for list operations (e.g., page=1, page_size=10, monitored=True), making the generic 'arguments' dict understandable. However, it does not explain each parameter's domain-specific meaning (e.g., what include_images affects).

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 states the tool's scope as 'sonarr wanted operations' and enumerates four specific operations (get/list for cutoff and missing). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on wanted items, but does not explicitly contrast with other Sonarr tools.

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 explains the dispatch pattern by requiring an 'operation' and 'arguments' dict, and lists operation signatures, which implies how to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like sonarr_release_search or sonarr_queue, nor does it provide any exclusion/alternative guidance.

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