radarr_get_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; "Get" implies a safe read, and the default date window (next week) is disclosed. However it says nothing about permissions, return shape, or how unmonitored/includeMovies change the payload beyond the schema's own text.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its default, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only calendar tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves the return shape (what a "calendar entry" is) and the effect of includeMovies unexplained. It is complete enough to call, not to fully anticipate results.

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%, so all four parameters including the start/end defaults are already documented in the schema. The description's date-range phrasing adds no format or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get movies releasing in a date range") with a clear scope, which separates it from list/single-movie siblings like radarr_get_all_movies and radarr_get_movie. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Great for seeing what's coming to theaters or digital" implies the use case (upcoming-release browsing) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as radarr_get_wanted, which also surfaces movies the user cares about. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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