Get a TIDAL track

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that only 'public' metadata is returned, so private/user-scoped data is out of scope — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how with_album alters the response.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and scope lead. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the with_album parameter and lookup prerequisites unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The remaining gap is the undocumented with_album parameter and the absence of any note on resolving a track ID before calling — an agent could invoke it but not with full understanding.

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 0% across 2 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that track_id expects an exact identifier, but the with_album boolean (default true) is never explained — an agent cannot tell what it includes or why it defaults to true.

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 ('Return') and resource ('full public metadata for one exact track ID'), which distinguishes it from the many specialized track getters in the sibling list (tidal_get_track_lyrics, tidal_get_track_radio, tidal_get_track_playback_info, tidal_get_track_url). It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'one exact track ID' implies the caller must already hold an ID (rather than resolving one via tidal_search), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the ~90 siblings. Guidance is inferable at best.

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