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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing specific behavioral outputs (preview URL, human product page) and details of the response, but it does not add substantial new behavioral disclosures beyond what annotations provide. The safety traits are consistent with the 'read' nature of the tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose and lists key elements. There is zero wasteful prose; every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and what it returns.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: it explains input (productId or slug), output (full details including specific fields), and safety (via annotations). Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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% because the only parameter 'id' already includes a description: 'productId (from search_tracks) or the track slug'. The description's mention of 'by productId or slug' simply reinforces the existing schema documentation without adding new semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 specific verb ('get'), a resource ('one track'), and explicitly enumerates the included content (metadata, prices, licence scope, preview URL, human product page). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like search_tracks (search) and get_download_link (download) by focusing on 'full details' for a single track.

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 clearly implies the primary use case: retrieving full details for a specific track when you have a productId or slug. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of 'Full details' and the parameter description reinforce the intended use. Given the sibling list, an agent can infer this is the detailed lookup vs. search or download tools.

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