list_wanted_missing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the literal 'Read' label, such as pagination behavior, default sort, or what set of records is considered 'missing'.

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, but the seven-line parameter list is boilerplate that duplicates schema property names without adding value. It is concise only in the sense of being short; it is not substantively informative.

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 7 optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description does not provide enough information for an agent to select or invoke this tool confidently. The output schema may document the response, but the missing tool semantics and parameter guidance make this definition fundamentally incomplete.

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%, and the description merely repeats each parameter name with the phrase 'Query parameter' without explaining meaning, allowed values, or effects. For example, sort_direction's expected format, what monitored controls, and how include_series/include_images behave are all left undefined.

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 'Read Missing.' is nearly a restatement of the tool name and does not define what 'missing' refers to in this domain. The endpoint /api/v3/wanted/missing adds some concrete context, but the description still fails to distinguish this from related siblings like list_wanted_cutoff or list_history.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_wanted_cutoff, get_wanted_missing_by_id, or list_episode. The description only lists the endpoint and parameters, with no conditions, exclusions, or use cases.

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