arr_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that nothing is added and that 'in_library' indicates pre-existence, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior for a lookup against external 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?

Short, front-loaded, and every line carries information; the only minor cost is the choppy fragment style that separates the routing note from the main sentence.

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 spelled out, yet the description still adds value by explaining the id and in_library fields. It covers both parameters adequately for a simple two-param lookup.

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 explains the service parameter's meaningful values, but leaves 'term' undocumented beyond the implicit 'by name' phrasing and doesn't clarify matching behavior.

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+resource ('Look up a show or movie by name') and clarifies the non-mutating nature with 'Nothing is added.' It also distinguishes itself from arr_add by explaining the returned id feeds into it, though it doesn't differentiate from arr_call or arr_requests.

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?

Gives the service routing values (sonarr/radarr/overseerr) and implies the search-then-add workflow by pointing to arr_add, but never states when to use this versus arr_call or arr_requests, nor any prerequisites.

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