Download + document URLs for a PAID order: the WAV download (link re-issuable anytime, no cookies needed), the PDF invoice and the PDF licence/ownership certificate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publicId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds meaningful details: the WAV link is re-issuable anytime and requires no cookies. This goes beyond generic get behavior, though it doesn't mention potential failure modes or auth for other documents.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds specific details without fluff. 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?
Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the returned URL types and highlights the re-issuable nature of the WAV link. It lacks return format details, but for a simple single-parameter tool, this is reasonably complete.
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 has only publicId, but the description never explains that publicId is the order identifier. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explicitly linking this parameter to the paid order context, which it fails to do.
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 returns download and document URLs for a paid order, specifying the exact resources (WAV, PDF invoice, license certificate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tracks or get_order_status.
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 explicitly limits usage to paid orders, which is useful context. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the paid-order precondition is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: search, track details, license terms, checkout creation, order status polling, and download retrieval. There is no overlap; even the order-related tools serve different phases of the workflow.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_checkout, get_download_link, get_license_terms, get_order_status, get_track, search_tracks). The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a music licensing workflow. Each tool covers an essential step from discovery to fulfillment, without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
The tools cover the full purchase lifecycle: searching and inspecting tracks, understanding license terms, creating a checkout, polling payment status, and retrieving downloads and documents. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from completing a licensing transaction.
