get_settings_radarr_by_radarr_id_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and the argument name, but doesn't add behavioral context beyond that, such as what the profiles represent or any error conditions. With annotations covering the key behavioral 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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The endpoint and Args section are useful but somewhat redundant with the schema. No wasted words, but the Args section could be considered unnecessary duplication.

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 GET with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and what the parameter is. However, it doesn't explain what profiles are used for or how they relate to Radarr configuration, which could matter for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. The output schema exists, so return values are covered.

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. It does mention 'radarr_id: Radarr instance ID' in the Args section, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Radarr Id' title. However, it doesn't explain how to find the Radarr instance ID or any constraints. The description adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the 0% schema 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 a clear verb and resource: 'Get available Radarr profiles.' It also includes the endpoint path, which reinforces the resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the name and endpoint make it clear this is about Radarr profiles specifically.

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 usage by showing the endpoint and the required radarr_id argument, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives. The context is clear enough for a simple GET operation, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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