Get lyrics

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses important behavior: default truncation with continuation via offset, the 'instrumental' status as a valid empty result, and the obligation to cite attribution. This adds significant context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then efficiently covers key usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value, though it could be broken into bullets for readability. It is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

Given the complexity (8 params, output schema present), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: format handling, truncation, instrumental edge case, and attribution. It does not explain return value structure because the output schema presumably does. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 already documents all 8 parameters well (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning by explaining the relationship between id and the artist/title fields, the exact matching requirement, the impact of format, and how offset/max_chars work together for pagination. This goes beyond the schema baseline.

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's function: 'Fetch the lyrics of one track from LRCLIB'. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'lyrics of one track' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings by referencing search_tracks for the id and offering exact artist/title lookup.

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 provides explicit usage context: use the id from search_tracks or exact artist/title, check has_synced_lyrics before requesting synced format, handle truncation with offset/next_offset, and do not retry instrumental tracks. It also tells when not to use it (instrumental results are valid).

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