Get track

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that secret_token unlocks private tracks and that the response is a metadata summary including access level. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a high-value usage tip. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple read-only metadata getter with full schema parameter coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists representative return fields, mentions private-track handling, and relies on the schema for raw/secret_token specifics. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 schema fully documents track, raw, and secret_token. The description adds marginal value by explaining the purpose of secret_token in context, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Fetch') on a specific resource ('a track's metadata') and enumerates representative fields (title, artist, duration, counts, access level, permalink). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like soundcloud_get_track_streams, soundcloud_get_track_comments, and soundcloud_get_track_engagement.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when you need track metadata. It also gives a specific usage condition: pass secret_token for private tracks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the metadata focus plus the private-track instruction provide solid contextual guidance.

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