get_libraries_by_id_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only modest behavioral context—the include parameter's only current option is rssfeed—and otherwise restates the endpoint; no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key purpose before the endpoint and argument list. It avoids fluff and keeps every line relevant, though the argument list could have added more value in the same space.

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 output schema and strong annotations reduce the need for the description to explain return values and side effects. However, for a library-series listing endpoint with optional sort/filter/include parameters, the missing semantics for sort and filter, plus the lack of sibling differentiation, leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameters, but it only clarifies that id is a path parameter and that include supports rssfeed. sort and filter are left as vague phrases ('field to sort by from the request', 'filter for the library') with no allowed values, syntax, or examples, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 opens with 'Get library series,' a clear verb+resource statement, and the endpoint GET /api/libraries/{id}/series confirms it returns the series for a specific library. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like get_libraries_by_id_series_by_series_id or get_series_by_id, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. With siblings such as get_libraries_by_id_series_by_series_id and get_series_by_id, an agent gets no help choosing among them; the description relies entirely on the tool name and endpoint.

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