get_return_track_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'get', but it does not disclose what data is returned, potential errors (e.g., invalid index), or any side effects. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague and does not set expectations for the response structure.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter listing. There is no redundant filler. However, it is under-specified, which limits its usefulness despite the clean structure.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'detailed information' includes, how indexing works, or what errors might occur. This lack of detail makes it hard for an agent to know what to expect from the tool, especially without an output schema.

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?

The description includes a minimal parameter explanation: 'return_index: The index of the return track.' This adds a little beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type, but it does not specify indexing conventions (0-based vs 1-based), valid ranges, or how to obtain the index. Given zero schema description coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly.

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 the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a return track.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('return track'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_return_tracks (which lists tracks) and get_track_info (which targets regular tracks). However, it does not elaborate on what 'detailed information' includes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single return track by index, nor does it contrast with get_return_tracks or get_track_info. A user would need to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and parameter, which is insufficient.

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