genius_get_song

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond them - no note on what happens with an invalid or missing ID, error behavior, or that the call proxies an external API.

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 with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a trivial lookup. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: it front-loads nothing about ID format or the key parameter.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the ID format and the role of api_key. Annotations cover the safety traits, but the parameter story is incomplete in both schema and description.

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% with two parameters. The description only implies that "id" identifies a song, without stating its type or format, and never mentions the api_key parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a Genius song by ID"), so the agent knows it retrieves one song. It does not distinguish this from the close siblings genius_search, genius_get_artist, or genius_artist_songs, so the agent must infer that this requires a known song ID.

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?

"by ID" weakly implies the caller must already have an identifier, which is a hint that genius_search is the right tool otherwise, but that alternative is never named. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement.

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