track_get_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the response mixes global data (album, length, popularity, tags) with user-scoped data (play count, loved flag), but says nothing about behavior for unknown tracks, empty tag lists, or missing user history.

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 that names the resource first and then the payload; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing return content, and it does so by enumerating the five facets returned. For a read-only three-parameter lookup tool this is close to sufficient; only error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so all three parameters including the optional user default are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of user play count and loved status gives indirect meaning to the `user` parameter but adds no new format or constraint information beyond 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 uses a specific resource framing ('Details for one track') and then enumerates the returned facets: album, length, global popularity, top tags, and user-specific play count and loved status. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like track_get_top_tags or track_get_similar, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as track_get_similar or track_get_top_tags. The only usage signal is implicit in the resource ('one track'), leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from sibling names.

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