apple_music_get_track

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only:' prefix merely restates structured data. Nothing is added about failure modes for an unknown ID, library access requirements, or what is returned.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the key operation and scope. The 'Read-only:' prefix is redundant against the annotations and costs a few characters of an otherwise waste-free description.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter, read-only getter with rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any output schema combined with no hint about what a track record contains or how to acquire a valid persistent ID.

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 0% for the single trackId parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds that the value is a 'persistent ID' (a stable identifier, not a name or index), but gives no format, example, or guidance on obtaining one.

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 and resource ('get one Music library track') and narrows the scope with 'by persistent ID', which distinguishes it from apple_music_list_tracks and apple_music_search. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'by persistent ID' implies this is a direct lookup rather than a discovery call, so usage is inferable. However, there is no statement of when to use this instead of apple_music_search or apple_music_list_tracks, nor any note on where the persistent ID comes from.

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