radarr_search_movies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the lookup happens on TMDB (an external source, not the local library) and that results are candidate matches, but says nothing about rate limits, result caps/pagination, or whether any local state is touched.

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 action and source, then return behavior, then the motivating use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where it queries, and what it returns at a high level. It could be slightly more concrete about the returned fields (e.g., that tmdbId is among them), but it is nearly complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'term' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds only the implicit notion that the term is a title, so it does not meaningfully extend the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (movies by title on TMDB) and notes the return is potential matches with metadata. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the very similarly named sibling radarr_search_movie, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 says when to use it: 'Use this to find the tmdbId needed to add a movie,' which ties it directly to radarr_add_movie and gives a concrete downstream goal. It gives no when-not guidance or contrast with the near-duplicate radarr_search_movie sibling.

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