Resolve SoundCloud URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds context about what the tool returns (kind, URN, summary) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, error behavior, or handling of invalid URLs. 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core transformation, lists the return values in a compact sequence, and ends with a terse, actionable usage directive. Every sentence 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?

For a simple single-parameter, read-only resolver with rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the input URL scope, the output shape, and the intended workflow. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of kind, URN, and summary.

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 value by explicitly including on.soundcloud.com short URLs alongside soundcloud.com, and by explaining that the output URN is meant for use with other tools — which helps an agent understand the practical role of the url parameter beyond the schema's brief description.

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 — turning a SoundCloud URL into its API resource — and clearly specifies what is returned: kind, URN, and summary. This clearly distinguishes it from the many get/search sibling tools, which operate on already-known resource identifiers rather than resolving arbitrary URLs.

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 explicitly says to 'Use this first whenever the user pastes a SoundCloud link,' which gives a clear and immediate usage context. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but for a resolver tool the primary workflow is obvious and no sibling tool competes for the same entry point.

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