list_feed_v3_calendar_radarr_ics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the HTTP GET method. It does not mention output format (ICS) or any limitations (e.g., no user/workspace filtering). The description is minimal and does not disclose anything beyond what a GET request implies.

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 short but not effectively structured. It front-loads the resource and then lists parameters in a redundant way that echoes the schema. It does not earn its sentences; the parameter list adds no value beyond the schema.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema details, and a low-context description, an agent cannot correctly invoke this tool. It lacks information on parameter formats, required versus optional, and expected response format. Despite having an output schema (mentioned in context), the description does not reference it, leaving the agent to guess.

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 must compensate for the 5 parameters. However, it only lists the names without any explanation of their purpose or acceptable values. For example, 'tags' and 'release_types' are ambiguous. This is completely inadequate given the low coverage.

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 states 'Read CalendarFeed' which identifies the resource but lacks specificity about what the feed contains (e.g., movie release schedule). The verb 'Read' is vague and does not convey the tool's purpose beyond fetching. Without details, it is hard to distinguish from other list_ tools related to calendar, such as list_calendar.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists query parameters without explaining their function or typical use cases. There is no mention of when to prefer this over list_calendar or other feed-related endpoints.

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