get_missing_episodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core behavioral contract: the returned set is filtered to monitored, already-aired, no-file episodes, and 'page through' signals paginated lazy loading. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only with no side effects, nor does it describe the response envelope or note that detailed=true changes payload size. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One 16-word sentence with no filler. The actionable criteria are front-loaded before the em-dash, and the canonical 'wanted/missing list' label is appended as a useful lexical hook. Every word earns its place.

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 list endpoint with seven optional, fully documented parameters and no required inputs, the description plus schema covers the callable contract well. The only gap: there is no output schema and the description never hints at the return shape (whether responses include pagination metadata or raw arrays), so an agent must guess at the response envelope. Minor given the tool's simplicity and the 'page through' framing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description echoes the 'monitored' filter and adds the air/no-file context that frames why sort_key/detailed/page_size exist, but it adds no syntax, formatting, or interaction details beyond the schema. It neither needs to compensate nor goes out of its way to enrich the parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('page through'), a precise resource predicate (monitored episodes that have already aired but have no file), and attaches the canonical Sonarr term 'wanted/missing list.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_episodes (all episodes), get_episode (single episode), get_calendar (date-based), and especially get_cutoff_unmet_episodes (episodes with files below quality cutoff, not missing files).

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 the use case — find monitored episodes that aired but were never downloaded — through its filter criteria, which is good context for an agent hunting for content gaps. However, it never explicitly contrasts with get_cutoff_unmet_episodes, the closest sibling, nor states when NOT to use it. The distinction between 'no file at all' (missing) and 'file below quality' (cutoff unmet) is left for the agent to infer.

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