arr_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does disclose the key safety fact that nothing is created ('Nothing is added') and that an 'in_library' flag is returned. It omits matching behavior, multi-result handling, and any auth/rate-limit context for the three backing services.

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 terse lines: purpose first, then parameter mapping, then return hints. Every line carries information, though the telegraphic style ('Nothing is added.' as a standalone sentence) is slightly fragmented.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, service mapping, and the follow-up call. It still leaves open whether multiple matches can come back and what the term matching rules are, which matters for a search 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for 'service', spelling out sonarr=shows, radarr=movies, seerr=both — information the schema lacks entirely. 'term' is only implied by 'by name', with no note on partial/fuzzy matching.

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 ('Look up a show or movie by name') and immediately clarifies 'Nothing is added,' which separates it from the write sibling arr_add. It does not name every adjacent sibling (arr_requests, arr_services), but the read-only lookup intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Shows the id to use with arr_add' implies the workflow (search first, then add), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no guidance on choosing arr_requests or arr_services for other lookups.

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