Get track metadata

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds that it returns metadata only (no lyrics) and whether plain and time-synced lyrics exist. This enriches behavioral expectations beyond annotations, though it does not mention potential not-found behavior.

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: the first states the operation and output, the second gives usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The sibling context and explicit usage guidance complete the picture without redundancies.

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 description covers the single parameter fully, noting the id is an LRCLIB track id as returned by search_tracks. The tool description reinforces this by saying 'by its id' and 'track id you already hold,' adding use-case context that complements the schema.

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 looks up a single LRCLIB track by its id and returns metadata without lyrics, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a known id and excluding lyrics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs to use this before get_lyrics to confirm the right release or check timed lyrics, implying search_tracks for finding ids and get_lyrics for actual lyrics. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names alternatives.

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