Cross-platform links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool returns IDs and deep links for all platforms, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., if track not found on a platform), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The core behavior is clear but basic.

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 sentence that packs all essential information: the action, output, supported platforms, and input constraint. No redundant words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description hints that the output contains IDs and deep links for each platform, but does not elaborate on structure, whether it returns multiple results, or how failures are handled. It is functional but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate. It adds that exactly one parameter should be used, but does not provide format hints (e.g., ISRC pattern) or clarify that some IDs are platform-specific. It lists platforms but adds little beyond the schema's property names.

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 the tool resolves a track to its ID and deep link on every supported platform, listing all platforms explicitly. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact platforms and the input requirements.

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 specifies that exactly one identifier must be provided, which is a key usage rule. However, it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like resolve_tracks or get_track, nor does it give examples of when not to use it.

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