Profile issues

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

readOnlyHint is already supplied, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond it: every `remedy` is advisory and 'never one arr-mcp performs', drift findings are instance-scoped rather than per-profile, and `note` reports the case where nothing was configured to check. The per-profile independence caveat ('a finding on some profiles says nothing about which others score the same format') prevents a real misreading. It does not cover result volume or truncation behavior, but with an output schema present that is a minor gap.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the fault taxonomy, and the caveats are ordered after it, which is the right sequence. The opening sentence runs long by piling six fault types into one clause chain, which slows scanning, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic with a fully documented schema and an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what is checked, how findings are scoped, how filtering interacts with drift, that remedies are not executed, and what an empty `note` means. Nothing material is missing.

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 limit, offset, detail, profile, service and instance are all already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds one genuine piece of meaning the schema lacks: that the `profile` filter does not constrain drift findings. That is useful but narrow.

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?

Opens with a concrete resource and scope: 'Faults in Radarr, Sonarr and Whisparr quality profiles', then enumerates the specific fault classes (unreachable minimum custom format score, edge scores, language coverage gaps, Profilarr drift). An agent knows exactly what class of findings this returns. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling (get_metadata_issues) to draw the boundary, so it is clear on its own but not fully differentiated.

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 context is implied (diagnostic auditing) and one real filter rule is stated: drift findings are instance-scoped and 'unaffected by the `profile` filter'. But the description never says when to reach for this versus get_metadata_issues or diagnose, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing configured profiles in Profilarr.

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