get_track_correction

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the core behavior (returns canonical spelling for a misspelled query) but does not disclose edge cases such as what happens when no correction exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a clean argument list with no filler or redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and each line 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?

For a simple read-only, two-string-parameter lookup with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential intent and input semantics. No additional return-value explanation is necessary because an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description bears the responsibility for parameter meaning. The 'as written' clarifications for artist and track add real semantic value beyond the bare schema property names, though they are terse and lack examples.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Last.fm's canonical spelling'), and domain ('misspelled artist and track'). The wording clearly differentiates from sibling get_artist_correction by requiring both artist and track, so agents can select the right correction endpoint.

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?

Implies use when an input has a non-canonical spelling and a canonical version is needed, and the argument labels 'as written' reinforce that. However, it never explicitly contrasts with get_artist_correction or other track retrieval siblings, and there is no 'when not to use' guidance.

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