Composition to recordings (ISWC)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns sorted recordings with ISRCs, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, disclose rate limits, or describe error behavior (e.g., invalid ISWC format).

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 no redundant information. The first sentence introduces the primary function and input format, the second explains the output characteristics. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's purpose and output nature (recordings sorted by popularity, with ISRC). However, it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., fields beyond ISRC), error handling, and performance considerations. Given no output schema, more descriptive compensation is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by providing ISWC format examples, explaining the sort order (by popularity), and mentioning that each recording includes a representative ISRC. This supplements the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 lists every recording of a musical work by ISWC, with examples of valid ISWC formats. It differentiates from sibling tools like lookup_isrc (ISRC lookup) and search_tracks (text search) by focusing on work-to-recordings mapping.

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 implies usage when an ISWC is available and recordings of that work are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings. No guidance on prerequisites or fallback strategies.

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