lyrics_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about the external lyrics source, coverage gaps, or what happens when no lyrics are found, so the sentence is essentially a restatement of the name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of any routing or behavioral detail.

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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is adequate to call the tool correctly. It omits what the response contains and how misses are signalled (no output schema exists to cover that), which leaves a modest gap.

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 100% and both parameters ('artist', 'title') are self-explanatory, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely names the same two fields without adding format guidance (e.g., how to handle featuring artists or alternate spellings).

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 song lyrics', with the two identifying keys (artist, title). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from adjacent music tools such as genius_get_song or genius_search in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is only implied: needing lyrics for a known song is the obvious trigger. There is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings like genius_get_song, and no note on failure conditions such as lyrics not being available for a given track.

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