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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results always carry a permanent public listen_url with cover art and waveform, and it flags the constraint that a cue without its listen_url cannot be auditioned. It does not cover failure modes for an invalid ref, but the added context is substantive.

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 field inventory is front-loaded and the second paragraph focuses on the single most important output, listen_url. It is slightly verbose about the listen_url page, but every sentence is on-topic and none is filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and highlighting listen_url. Annotations cover the safety profile. The main omission is disambiguating against stye_list_versions, which leaves ambiguity about which tool to pick for version exploration.

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 single param has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'ref' as the catalogue ID. The description only indirectly reinforces this via 'For a track already found' and does not add format, range, or lookup details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get full details for one track') and enumerates what is returned: audio character, tempo, key, length, instrumentation, versions, and listen_url. It also distinguishes itself from search by scoping to 'a track already found'. However, it never clarifies its boundary against the sibling stye_list_versions, which the description's 'every version that exists of it' seems to overlap with, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

'For a track already found, or for what else a cue can be delivered as' implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives. The overlap with stye_list_versions and stye_search_tracks is left for the agent to infer, which is a real gap given the sibling set.

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