Get station details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the tool surfaces a direct stream_url plus a listen_url for browser playback, and notes the data comes from a community directory. It does not discuss failure behavior for an unknown id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the retrieval purpose, the id source, and the useful return fields. The third sentence about broadcaster ownership and 72FM not curating stations is legal boilerplate that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, so the description is somewhat larger than its job requires.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not strictly required, yet the description still names the key outputs (stream_url, listen_url) and the data source. For a one-parameter idempotent lookup this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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 documented with a UUID pattern, so the baseline is already met. The description goes further by clarifying the id is a Radio Browser stationuuid obtained from sibling tools, adding provenance the schema does not.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: retrieve one radio station by its Radio Browser id. It also names the sibling tools that produce that id (search_stations, top_stations), so the agent can distinguish this lookup tool from the discovery tools without opening a schema.

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 tells the agent the id is 'as returned by search_stations or top_stations', which implies when this tool is the right follow-up call. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear enough.

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