Read a record drawn at random

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavior: the draw covers served ids, invalid ids are redrawn, and results include transcriptions if present. It also adds attribution requirements for showing to users, which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 efficient, front-loading the core purpose, then usage, then behavior, and ends with attribution. Every sentence adds value; the only slight inefficiency is the last sentence about crediting, which could be shorter, but it's necessary context. No wasted words.

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 is simple (one param, read-only, no output schema needed as it's described as same as get_song), and the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter purpose, and attribution. Complete for its complexity. The output schema likely mirrors get_song, so no need to detail returns.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter with full description, so the bar for added value is modest. The description adds why the parameter exists (to avoid heavy calls in browsing chains) and what it controls (whether to include transcription), though it doesn't add syntax details. Given full schema coverage, a 4 is justified for the contextual usage guidance.

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 it reads a random record from the Bide & Musique collection, same answer as get_song. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with get_song for particular song queries, and from search_songs and list_new_songs by its random selection.

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 explicitly says when to use: to browse the collection, and when not to: for a question about a particular song, use get_song. This direct alternative guidance is among the best evidence for this dimension.

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