soundcloud_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait — 'Public data sourced from SoundCloud's own JSON API' — which signals a safe read operation requiring no authentication. However, it does not mention rate limits, behavior on invalid or removed tracks, or any caching characteristics, leaving it at baseline rather than rich disclosure.

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 compact — three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, returned fields, and data source. The scoping statement is front-loaded, and there is no filler or 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?

For a single-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is largely complete: the input is fully covered by the schema, and the description enumerates the key fields of the return payload. The only gaps are minor edge details like failure behavior for invalid URLs, which are not critical for a low-complexity read tool.

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%, and the schema already fully documents that `url` is the track's permalink_url. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is exactly the baseline for full schema 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair — 'Get a SoundCloud track's detail' — and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like soundcloud_search, soundcloud_playlist, and soundcloud_profile by scoping to a single track. The enumeration of returned fields (title, artwork, description, genre, tags, counts, uploader) leaves no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor named alternatives. An agent can infer this is the right tool when it already holds a track URL and wants full metadata, but the description never says to use soundcloud_search for discovery or soundcloud_playlist for playlist content. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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