arr_requests

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

No annotations are provided, but the wording 'Show' implies a read-only operation. The description does not explicitly state permissions, side effects, or rate limits; the output schema covers return shape, which reduces the disclosure burden, but behavioral details remain thin.

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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the filter values and the approval alternative. Every sentence is relevant, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple read/list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, valid filters, and the out-of-scope approval flow. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'take' parameter, but an agent can still invoke the tool via defaults.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully lists all filter values for the 'filter' parameter, but it never explains the 'take' parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show Seerr requests.' It also enumerates request filters and explicitly distinguishes approval/decline actions as belonging to arr_call, so an agent can tell this is a read/list tool rather than a decision tool.

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?

It clearly routes approval or decline actions to arr_call with the relevant POST endpoints and adds the important condition 'after the user says yes.' It does not explicitly contrast this tool with other siblings such as arr_search or arr_downloads, but the intended usage is clear.

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