find_track

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it verifies the artist on the result and returns null when no verified match exists. This gives the agent essential runtime expectations without needing to infer them.

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?

Two short sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the critical return behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a simple two-parameter lookup: it explains the search intent, the verification constraint, and the null case. It does not detail the shape of the returned track, but 'find one track' plus null-on-no-match is sufficient for typical invocation.

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 carry the meaning of the parameters. It does this by tying 'track' and 'artist' to the verification behavior: track is the requested song, and artist is the verification criterion that must appear on the result.

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 states a specific action ('Find one track') with a concrete verification behavior ('verifying the artist is on the result'). It also names the problem it solves ('avoids karaoke/cover mismatches'), clearly distinguishing it from a more generic search tool.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a single track and want to ensure the artist actually matches, avoiding karaoke/cover versions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose this over generic search.

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