Get a track

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the tool is non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (titles, contributors, etc.), which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or rate limits, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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 a single 13-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding, with no superfluous content.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation and the data returned. It lacks details on possible return fields or error conditions, but the listed fields (titles, contributors, etc.) provide sufficient context for most use cases.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that the single parameter (track_id) is used to identify the track, but it does not elaborate on format, range, or source of the ID beyond the schema's minimum constraint. This is minimal additional meaning.

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 'Retrieve one track by id' and enumerates the included fields (titles, contributors, writers, publishers, royalty splits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_file or get_track_audio_download_url that focus on specific aspects. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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 vs. alternatives (e.g., list_tracks for listing). It merely describes the operation without context on prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and included fields.

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