arr_search_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses key traits: simultaneous search across services, a fixed result limit (top 5 per service), and an optional type filter. This goes beyond a simple 'search' statement. It does not cover error handling or ranking criteria, but for a read-only search tool, sufficient behavioral context is provided.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no filler. Each sentence delivers essential information: the cross-service search, the result limit, the use case, and parameter guidance. This is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers purpose, use case, key behavior, and filtering. It mentions the result limit but not the exact return structure or potential error cases. Given no output schema and the straightforward nature of a cross-service search, the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters already well-described in the schema. The description only restates the type filter usage ('Use the type filter to narrow'), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool searches across all configured *arr services simultaneously, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('all configured *arr services'). It also distinguishes itself from single-service search tools like sonarr_search by emphasizing the cross-service scope, and notes the return limit of top 5 results per service.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for finding whether something is already tracked in any service.' It also offers guidance on using the type filter to narrow searches. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the cross-service vs. single-service distinction is implicit from sibling tool names.

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