sonarr_search_series

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 discloses the return shape ('potential matches with metadata'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether the search is local vs remote. For a read-only search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action leads, the return value follows, and the routing purpose closes. 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 one-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers action, source, and return nature, which is close to sufficient. Minor gaps remain around result limits or pagination, but an agent can call this correctly as written.

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% and the single 'term' parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds only the 'by title' framing, which is minor reinforcement rather than new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for TV series by title') plus the backing sources (TVDB/TMDB), so intent is unambiguous. It loosely distinguishes itself from the sibling sonarr_search_series_command by implying a direct lookup that returns matches, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use this to find the tvdbId needed to add a series' gives a concrete downstream purpose and implicitly routes the agent toward sonarr_add_series. It stops short of stating when not to use it or contrasting with the command-style search sibling.

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