radarr_get_missing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal extra context about the data being 'missing/wanted' movies but does not elaborate on response format, pagination behavior, or any other runtime nuances. It meets the baseline but provides no additional behavioral disclosure beyond what the annotations and name imply.

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?

The description is a single, seven-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information, fluff, or repetition of schema details, making it maximally concise and well-structured.

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 pagination tool with good annotations and self-explanatory parameters, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the resource type (missing/wanted movies) and source (Radarr). While it lacks an explicit alternative reference or deeper behavior description, the simplicity and existing schema coverage make it sufficient for most use cases.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (page and pageSize) with defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Get missing/wanted movies from Radarr' uses a specific verb (Get) and identifies the resource (missing/wanted movies) and source system (Radarr). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like radarr_get_movies (which likely returns all movies) and sonarr_get_missing (which targets TV series), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies that the tool is used to retrieve missing/wanted movies but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives such as radarr_get_queue or radarr_search. There is no 'Use this when...' or mention of exclusions, leaving the usage context to be inferred from the name alone.

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