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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool spans two catalog types and requires the exact id including the 'partner_' prefix, a quirk with real failure consequences. No return format or pagination notes, but for a single-record read that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then the return fields, then usage. Tight overall, though the 'partner_' prefix instruction is stated twice (once in the description, once in the schema), which is mild redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values, and it does by listing the metadata fields (pricing, formats, artist, BPM, key, mood, terms). Combined with the id-passing caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described, so the schema carries the load. The description repeats the 'partner_' prefix constraint already present in the schema description, adding essentially nothing new. Baseline 3 for fully documented params.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Retrieve) with a precise resource (full metadata for a specific track) and enumerates the returned fields (license pricing, formats, artist info, BPM, key, mood, license terms). It also distinguishes the two catalog scopes (OnChain vs partner), so the agent can separate it from search_catalog or ai_search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('after search_catalog or ai_search to confirm details before licensing') and names both upstream alternatives. This routes the agent clearly: search first, then confirm with get_track before licensing.

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