prowlarr_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the sorting (seeders descending), result fields (title, indexer, size, etc.), and optional filters. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or destructive behavior, but as a search tool, this is adequate. However, it could note that search is across multiple indexers and may have latency.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states the main purpose and sorting, the second lists result fields and optional restrictions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with key information.

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?

An output schema exists (context signal true), so the description needn't detail return values extensively. It covers result fields, sorting, and optional filters. The only missing detail is the limit parameter and potential pagination, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand invocation and outcome.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes query (implicitly required), indexer_ids, and categories as 'newznab category ids'. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, even though it has a default of 20 in the schema. This leaves agents unaware of the optional limit parameter, a notable gap.

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 'Cross-indexer search via Prowlarr' and specifies it works for any content (movies, ebooks, manga, software). It distinguishes from the sibling prowlarr_grab by mentioning the grab reference. The verb 'search' with 'cross-indexer' and 'Prowlarr' is specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates it is for searching any content and optionally restricting by indexer_ids and categories. It implies the use case for finding torrents before grabbing with prowlarr_grab. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for filtering by user/workspace.

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