Get Track Info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context beyond these: it specifies the return format (TrackList with 'tracks' containing metadata including release_date) and the behavior difference for single vs list input.

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 well-structured into three short paragraphs (purpose, args, returns, note). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single parameter, thorough annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the return format for both single and list inputs and offers an efficiency tip.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'track_ids: Single track ID or list of track IDs (up to 50)'. This adds type, limit, and usage context not present in the schema.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about one or more Spotify tracks,' specifying the verb (Get), resource (track info), and scope (one or more). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_album_info and get_artist_info.

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 includes an important usage note about batch efficiency: 'Batch lookup is much more efficient - 50 tracks = 1 API call instead of 50.' This guides the agent to prefer batch calls, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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