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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: every result includes a permanent 'listen_url' page, and it explicitly instructs the agent to ALWAYS provide this URL to the user because a track they cannot hear is useless. This goes beyond annotations and is useful operational guidance.

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 description is well-structured with a concise first sentence that defines purpose, followed by clear usage and a prominent listen_url note. However, it becomes repetitive with 'Use this whenever someone asks for music...' which duplicates and contradicts earlier usage guidance, and the overall length is more than needed for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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 low-complexity read tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential return content (track attributes, versions, listen_url) and the critical behavioral requirement to always surface the listen_url. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the main returned fields. The only notable gap is the misleading usage overgeneralization, which prevents a perfect score.

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 parameter 'ref' is already fully described in the schema as 'A track ref from any other tool's results,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond implying the ref comes from a search result. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving comprehensive details for a single track, enumerating the specific data returned (tempo, key, length, instrumentation, versions, listen_url). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'stye_search_tracks' (finding tracks) and 'stye_list_versions' (which focuses on one subset) by framing this as the full-detail aggregation tool.

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 provides a clear use case: 'when someone has picked a track from a search and wants to know more.' However, it then makes an overbroad and misleading claim: 'Use this whenever someone asks for music, a soundtrack, a score, a cue, background music, something to play under footage — or mentions Songs To Your Eyes.' This contradicts the sibling tool 'stye_search_tracks' which would be the appropriate first step for such broad requests, and fails to mention when NOT to use this tool.

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