force_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool queues a manual search, queries providers, snatches matching releases, and reqs†ŝê³½† waiting for a status change. It could mention whether the operation is asynchronous or what a successful response looks like, but it captures the main side effect.

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?

Three sentences, each meaningful: the command, the behavior, and the usage context. There is no filler, and the most important action is stated up front.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers command, provider interaction, side effects, and when to invoke it. It does not elaborate on possible failures or return behavior, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters already have clear descriptions and examples in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making this a baseline case.

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 a specific verb and resource: it forces a manual search for specific episodes and queues an operation that actively queries providers and snatches releases. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tvdb or set_episode_status.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction: after setting episode status to "wanted" when you want immediate search and download. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list conditions that should prevent its use, though the guidance is concrete enough for an agent.

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