arr_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' implies read-only and it discloses the filter vocabulary and the approve/decline handoff, but it says nothing about authentication needs, result ordering, rate limits, or pagination behavior (the take parameter is left unexplained).

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the filter vocabulary and the sibling handoff; no filler. The stray blank line and terse fragmented formatting cost it marginally.

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 described. For a simple filtered-list tool the description covers what it does, the filter values, and where to go for approval actions. The only real gap is the undocumented 'take' paging parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does document the valid filter values, which is genuinely useful since no enum is attached in the schema, but it never names 'take' or explains the default/paging semantics. Partial compensation only.

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 verb and resource ('Show Overseerr requests') and enumerates the filter states, which lets an agent tell it apart from sibling read tools like arr_queue or arr_search. It is a clear read/list tool, though 'Show' is slightly less precise than 'list'.

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?

Explicitly routes mutation of requests to a sibling ('To approve or decline, use arr_call with POST /request/<id>/approve'), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use-else guidance that matters. It does not state when a caller should prefer this over arr_search or arr_queue, so it falls short of a 5.

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