Indexers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description still adds real context: what detail levels expose, that disable reasons are surfaced, and that indexer-supplied failure text is fenced as untrusted data. That last point is a meaningful disclosure an agent would otherwise not know. Pagination hazards are left to the schema rather than restated here.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the detail-gating clause and the untrusted-data caveat. The first sentence is dense with em-dashes but each clause carries distinct information. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotation covers safety. The description fills in the parts structured fields cannot: what the data means and that indexer-authored strings are untrusted. The only gap is routing guidance relative to the many sibling diagnostic tools.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 would be defensible, but the description genuinely extends the 'detail' parameter: the schema only says 'how much per-item detail', while the description tells the agent that full is what surfaces recently rejected queries and their reasons. limit and offset receive no added meaning beyond their already-complete schema text.

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 names the resource (Prowlarr indexers) and enumerates exactly what is reported: enabled/disabled state, disable reasons, per-indexer query and grab counts, and rejected queries at full detail. That is far more specific than the bare name 'get_indexers'. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours such as diagnose, stack_health, or manage_indexer.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only health/monitoring view of indexers. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus diagnose or stack_health, and no pointer to manage_indexer for actually changing an indexer's state. The one conditional it does give — 'at detail: full' unlocks rejection data — is about parameters, not tool selection.

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