get_lyrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and 'bounded' conveys pagination, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose error handling, behavior when translation is unavailable, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. 'Bounded' efficiently conveys pagination, and the sentence structure is clear. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and all parameters are fully described, the tool becomes usable, but the description itself is minimal. It lacks usage context, pagination behavior details, and relationship to other tools. The description is minimally complete for a straightforward read operation but leaves room for improvement.

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's mention of 'aligned translation and romanization' loosely maps to include_translation and include_romanization, but the schema already describes these parameters. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'bounded lyric page', which distinguishes it from song search or recommendation tools. Mentioning optional aligned translation and romanization adds further specificity. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like music_search or get_songs. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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