get_service_sonarr_by_sonarr_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns quality profiles and root folders, which is behavioral context about the return content. However, it does not disclose anything about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but given the annotations cover the main traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 highly concise: one sentence stating the action and a line for the endpoint and parameter. The key information is front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured with separate sections for behavior and parameter. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It states the return content (quality profiles and root folders) and the parameter's role (path parameter). There is no need to describe return values because the output schema handles that. It could mention prerequisites or typical use cases, but for a GET operation, it is sufficient.

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 schema provides only the type (number) and title, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds 'Path parameter', which clarifies the parameter's role but not its semantic meaning. The name 'sonarr_id' implies it is the ID of the Sonarr server, but the description does not elaborate on how to obtain it or valid values. This is minimal compensation for the schema gap, so a 3 is fair.

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 clearly states the tool 'Get Sonarr server quality profiles and root folders', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_service_sonarr (which lists all) and get_service_sonarr_lookup_by_tmdb_id (which searches by TMDB ID), making its 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for a specific Sonarr server's profiles/root folders, nor does it suggest when to use list_service_sonarr or lookup instead. The user must infer the usage context from the endpoint path.

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