Read a record drawn at random

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds significant behavioral context: random draw mechanism over served ids with redraw on invalid id, condition about transcriptions being included, and a requirement to credit Bide & Musique when displaying results. 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 longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, draw mechanics, transcription behavior, and attribution requirement. It is well-structured but slightly verbose, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 fully equips the agent to invoke the tool correctly: it explains the randomness, fallback behavior, transcription inclusion, and attribution duty. The output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. Complete for a complex random-read tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but it does clarify the outcome is the same as get_song, which indirectly helps understand the return shape.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Read one record drawn at random from the Bide & Musique collection.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'same answer as get_song, on a record nobody chose' and later 'For a question about a particular song, use get_song.'

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use it to browse the collection. For a question about a particular song, use get_song.' This gives an explicit when-to-use and clearly directs to an alternative for a different use case.

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