Subtitles

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses that results span two media types, that per-item wanted languages are included, that provider state (working/throttled/blocked) is folded into the response, and that release names are externally sourced and fenced as untrusted data. That last point is a meaningful safety-relevant behavior an agent would not otherwise know; only return shape and ordering are left unaddressed.

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 tight sentences with the scope and the diagnostic rationale front-loaded, and the untrusted-data caveat placed last where it belongs. The opening is a verbless noun phrase ('Subtitles Bazarr knows are missing') which reads slightly as a label rather than an action, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the three optional scalars are fully documented in schema. The description supplies the scope and the diagnostic framing an agent needs; only explicit sibling routing is missing, which is a minor gap for a read-only list 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 100%, including the limit cap, the detail enum, and the offset/sort pagination caveat, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g., whether 'detail: full' includes provider diagnostics), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (subtitles Bazarr knows are missing) with explicit scope: both films and episodes, wanted languages per item, plus provider health. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_wanted (missing media) and trigger_subtitle_search (an action), so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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 implies the use case by noting provider status is 'usually why something is missing', which points at diagnosis. But it never explicitly says when to call this versus get_wanted, diagnose, or trigger_subtitle_search, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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