find_canonical_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load. It discloses local-computation, 1–2 GET /search calls, fallback broad search, quotas, and the ranking order studio > album > live/remaster. It doesn't explicitly state 'does not mutate data', but 'local-compute' plus read-only search calls imply it.

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?

Assembled in one efficient sentence with input, algorithm, output, and quota all front-loaded. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

Covers purpose, algorithm, output, fallback behavior, and quota. However, there is no output schema and the 'variant table' format is left vague, so an agent still has some ambiguity about exact returned fields.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning for market or response_format, and only restates title + artist which the schema already documents.

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 specific verb 'find', identifies the resource (canonical track), and describes the grouping/ranking algorithm. It clearly distinguishes itself from search_tracks and other lookup tools by returning a canonical URI plus variant table.

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?

Clearly states when to use it: given a title + artist, find the canonical version among all versions. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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