get_service_sonarr_lookup_by_tmdb_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP path and a redundant parameter note. It does not disclose what happens on not-found, whether a Sonarr service must be configured, or any rate limits. With annotations present, the description should add context but fails to do so.

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 optimally structured. The first sentence is useful, but the second sentence repeating the parameter as a path parameter adds no value since the schema already covers it. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not. It could be improved by removing the redundant 'Args' line and adding a brief note on return behavior.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the return type is documented elsewhere. However, the description omits preconditions (e.g., Sonarr must be configured) and behavior when the TMDB ID is not found (e.g., returns empty list or error). For a lookup tool, this is a meaningful gap that could lead an agent to make incorrect assumptions.

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 parameter meaning. However, it merely states 'tmdb_id: Path parameter,' which is redundant with the schema (already defines type number and required). It adds no explanation of what a TMDB ID is, its format, or how to obtain it. The parameter is trivial, but the description provides zero additional value.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get series from Sonarr.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_service_sonarr_by_sonarr_id (which fetches by Sonarr ID) and get_tv_by_tv_id (which likely fetches by TVDB/TMDB without Sonarr context). The tool name and description together make 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name that it is for looking up a series by TMDB ID in Sonarr, but there is no explicit routing or when-not-to-use advice.

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