Cross-platform links

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior—returning the ID and deep link for all listed platforms—and the exactly-one-input requirement. However, it does not describe error cases, behavior when multiple IDs are provided, matching exactness, or any access/rate limits.

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 sentences, with the core resolution behavior front-loaded and the input cardinality rule stated immediately after. Every clause contributes; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 covers the main invocation rule and the output's overall shape, but with no output schema and no annotations it should also clarify the response structure and error behavior for missing/ambiguous identifiers. The schema's all-optional parameters also conflict slightly with the description's 'exactly one' rule, leaving room for misuse.

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 22%, so the description needed to compensate. It does add the key meaning that all listed platform parameters are valid lookup keys and that exactly one must be supplied, but it leaves most platform ID formats undefined beyond the schema's Discogs note.

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 names a specific action ('Resolve a track to its ID and deep link') and lists the seven supported platforms, so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as resolve_tracks, which likely overlaps in behavior, so it misses the top score.

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?

It gives a clear, explicit usage rule: identify the track by exactly one of SonoVault id, ISRC, or any platform ID. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over resolve_tracks, lookup_isrc, or get_track, so it lacks explicit alternatives and exclusions.

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