Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_favorite_tracksA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal read-only intent, return structure, and failure/authentication error behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting/ordering, or explicitly state that no modifications occur, leaving some behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The first and third sentences express nearly the same information, adding redundancy. The trigger-phrase list and Args/Returns sections are useful and organized, but the repetition costs conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers return fields, error conditions, authentication failure, and representative use cases. Missing ordering/per-pagination behavior and a clearer authentication prerequisite are minor gaps for such a simple read-only tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema provides only a default and type with 0% description coverage, so the description has to compensate. It explains 'limit' as the maximum number of tracks and adds a practical default-size note, which meaningfully exceeds the schema's information.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves tracks from the user's TIDAL account favorites'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It is clearly differentiated from playlist-oriented siblings by the word 'favorites', but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR:' block with concrete example queries and a catch-all phrase covering saved/favorite track requests. It gives clear when-to-use context but no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool mentions.

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

• delete_tidal_playlistA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that TIDAL authentication is required, that deletion targets the user's own TIDAL account, and that a status dictionary is returned. However, it does not mention irreversibility, ownership restrictions, or what happens to the tracks, so the destructive profile is only partially covered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The core behavior is front-loaded, but the description is padded with a six-bullet trigger list and repeats the same deletion idea ('Deletes a TIDAL playlist' vs 'This function deletes a specific playlist'). The Args/Returns sections are useful and organized, but several sentences could be collapsed without losing meaning.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers authentication, parameter semantics, return shape, and post-call agent steps. The lack of an output schema makes the stated 'dictionary containing the status of the playlist deletion' valuable. Outstanding details like irreversibility are more behavioral than contextual, so this is close to complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'playlist_id: The TIDAL ID of the playlist to delete (required)' is sufficient for a single string parameter, though it could hint at where to locate the ID.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a TIDAL playlist by its ID' and later scopes it to 'a specific playlist from the user's TIDAL account.' This clearly distingushes it from sibling tools such as remove_tracks_from_playlist, which act on tracks rather than the playlist itself.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit trigger conditions ('USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR...') with concrete examples, and states the auth prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with remove_tracks_from_playlist, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended usage is clear.

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

• search_tidalA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds value: it discloses that results come back organized by content type and provides a five-step processing protocol, including 'Always include TIDAL URLs so users can easily access the content.' It doesn't mention authentication (despite a tidal_login sibling existing) or rate limits, but as an explicitly read-only search operation those gaps are minor.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The definition is front-loaded with a strong opening line and well-structured Args/Returns sections, but it contains notable redundancy. The five trigger bullets are all near-duplicates of each other ('Search for [song/artist/album] on TIDAL', 'Look for [song title]', 'Search TIDAL for [anything]'), and the five processing steps overlap ('Highlight the most relevant results first' vs 'focus on the most accurate matches'; URLs appear in both steps 2 and 5).

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden, and it does cover the essentials: purpose, triggers, parameter meaning, defaults, and return shape ('A dictionary containing search results organized by content type'). But the return structure is vague — no keys, no indication of how an agent extracts per-type results — and auth requirements are never addressed, which is salient given the tidal_login sibling. It is adequate but has clear informational gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate — and it does. The Args section explains all three parameters with meaning and valid values: 'query: The search term (song title, artist name, album name, etc.)', search_type enumerated as 'all', 'tracks', 'albums', 'artists', or 'playlists' with its default, and limit with default and per-type semantics ('Maximum number of results per type'). No parameter is left ambiguous.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The opening line 'Search TIDAL for tracks, albums, artists, or playlists with comprehensive results' states a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from the type-specific siblings by claiming coverage of 'all TIDAL content types,' though it never explicitly names search_tracks, search_albums, etc., and the search_type parameter means it can also act like those siblings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' section gives five concrete trigger examples ('Search for [song/artist/album] on TIDAL', 'Find songs by [artist]') thattell an agent exactly when to fire this tool. However, it asserts 'WHENEVER' without any when-not-to-use guidance and never addresses when the type-specific sibling tools (search_tracks, search_albums) should be preferred.

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

• update_playlist_metadataA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update rule (at least one of title or description must be provided), the return shape, and post-processing steps for the agent. However, it does not mention that a TIDAL login is required (tidal_login is a sibling tool), nor what happens on error or when the playlist is not found.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with distinct sections (purpose, usage triggers, constraint, processing steps, args, returns) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It loses a point for redundancy: 'Update a TIDAL playlist's title and/or description' is nearly restated by 'This function updates the title and/or description of a user's TIDAL playlist.'

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple mutation tool it covers the essentials — what it does, when to use it, the at-least-one validation rule, and how to present results. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the actual return status values, error cases, and the authentication prerequisite given that tidal_login exists among siblings.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: playlist_id as 'the TIDAL ID of the playlist,' title and description as new values. It also adds the crucial constraint that at least one optional field must be provided — information not derivable from the schema, which shows null defaults for both.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Update a TIDAL playlist's title and/or description.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling playlist tools like create_tidal_playlist, delete_tidal_playlist, add_tracks_to_playlist, and reorder_playlist_tracks, which operate on different aspects of playlists.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' block lists concrete user intents — renaming, changing description — plus a catch-all ('Any request to modify playlist metadata'). This provides clear when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

• search_albumsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the safety/behavior disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and the return type is stated, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It is adequate but not rich.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage triggers, args, and returns. The example trigger phrases are a bit redundant with 'Any specific album search request,' but they are useful and the overall length is reasonable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Covers purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, and return type for a two-parameter search tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the 'dictionary containing album search results with detailed information' return description is vague, and the relationship to general search_tidal is not addressed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has no property descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining query as 'album title, artist name, or combination' and limit as 'Maximum number of albums to return (default: 20)'. Both parameters are given meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Opens with 'Search specifically for albums on TIDAL,' naming a precise verb, resource, and platform. This clearly distinguishes search_albums from sibling tools like search_tracks, search_artists, and search_playlists without needing to open their schemas.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit trigger phrases ('Find the album [title]', 'Search for albums by [artist]') and a catch-all for any specific album request. It does not explicitly state when to prefer search_tidal or other sibling search tools, but the 'specifically for albums' framing gives clear context.

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

• get_user_playlistsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does meaningful work: results are 'sorted by last updated date (most recent first)', the return type is a dictionary, and the numbered processing steps reveal available fields (title, track count, TIDAL URL, last updated). It omits auth dependency and empty-state behavior, but for a zero-param read-only getter this is solid context beyond the bare call.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Well-structured and front-loaded: purpose sentence first, then triggers, then behavior, then presentation guidance. But it is verbose for a zero-param getter — the trigger list contains near-synonymous entries ('Show me my playlists', 'List my TIDAL playlists', 'What playlists do I have?') and the four numbered presentation steps could be condensed into one or two sentences.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the empty schema, absent annotations, and missing output schema, the description is thorough: it covers when to invoke, sorting behavior, return type, and even which fields to surface when presenting results. It would earn a 5 with an explicit note about requiring a prior TIDAL login or how it behaves when the account has no playlists.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetches the user's playlists from their TIDAL account.' The possessive scope ('the user's') clearly separates it from sibling search_playlists (public search) and get_playlist_tracks (tracks inside a single playlist), so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides an explicit trigger block — 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' — with concrete example phrasings and a catch-all ('Any request to view or list their TIDAL playlists'). However, it never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative for other playlist requests (e.g., search_playlists for public playlists), so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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

• add_tracks_to_playlistA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states prerequisites (existing playlist, edit permission), hints at partial failure ('If any tracks failed to add, explain why'), and describes the return value as a status dictionary with the number added. It does not address duplicate handling or reversibility, but the core behavior is transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with headings, front-loads the main action, and then provides usage triggers, arguments, and return info. It is slightly repetitive—'Add tracks to an existing TIDAL playlist' appears twice—and the final catch-all trigger is redundant, but overall it is reasonably compact.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key context: prerequisites, parameters, behavior, and return shape. It also gives post-processing guidance. It could include error cases or edge cases, but the essential information an agent needs is present.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0% and the schema provides only types, but the Args section adds meaningful semantics: playlist_id is the TIDAL ID of the playlist and track_ids is a list of TIDAL track IDs. This is enough for an agent to pass correct values, though examples or constraints are missing.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the operation: 'Add tracks to an existing TIDAL playlist.' It emphasizes that the playlist must already exist, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tidal_playlist. The explicit trigger examples further clarify the intended use.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit user-phrase triggers ('Add these songs to my playlist') and states preconditions: the playlist must already exist and the user must have permission. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for non-existent playlists, so routing guidance stops short of full when-not coverage.

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

• create_tidal_playlistA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: it creates a new playlist in the user's account, adds tracks, requires TIDAL authentication, and returns a status/details dictionary. It even prescribes follow-up URL and confirmation behavior. It doesn't cover failure modes or side effects beyond creation, but it is substantially transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Front-loaded purpose and clear sections, but it is noticeably verbose: the trigger examples repeat the general rule, and the naming-convention guidance is extensive workflow advice rather than invocation-critical tool behavior. A tighter description would preserve value with less duplication.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers auth requirements, input semantics, expected return dictionary, and post-result processing including URL construction. An agent has enough context to select, invoke, and handle the tool without further disambiguation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has 0% description coverage, so the Args section compensates by explaining title as the playlist name, track_ids as a list of TIDAL track IDs, and description as optional with a default. It doesn't specify track ID format or sources, but the semantics are clear.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  States a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new TIDAL playlist with the specified tracks.' This is reinforced by 'creates a new playlist in the user's TIDAL account and adds the specified tracks to it,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_tracks_to_playlist or update_playlist_metadata.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit trigger examples ('USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR...') and a general rule covering any request to create a new TIDAL playlist. It also notes authentication is required. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• get_listening_historyA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well: it explains that only mix metadata is returned, describes the tier/month_index ordering, and notes a possible warning. It also states this is a read-only signal and points to get_mix_tracks for expanding the result, though it does not discuss auth or error cases.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well organized into purpose, trigger list, domain explanation, and returns. It is longer than strictly necessary, but each section earns its place because the trigger examples and tier explanation aid tool selection and correct follow-up calls.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the returned dictionary fields, the warning case, and the next step of fetching tracks. It could add a note about authentication/prerequisite state, but that is a minor gap given the sibling tidal_login.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are zero parameters, so the schema needs no enrichment; the baseline of 4 applies. The description goes further by explaining the semantics of the returned records (tier, month_index, title), which is more than required.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves the user's TIDAL listening-history mixes.' It also lists concrete user phrasings and the underlying play-frequency/recency signal, which separates it from sibling tools like get_user_mixes or recommend_tracks.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit trigger phrases and the general condition 'any request that depends on play frequency or recency.' It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it misses the top anchor slightly, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

• search_artistsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation searches for artists and returns a dictionary containing results, and it provides the default limit. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or the shape of the returned dictionary, which leaves some ambiguity.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact usage trigger list and concise Args/Returns sections. Every part earns its place with no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers usage, inputs, defaults, and return container. The main gap is not explaining how this tool relates to search_tidal or the other entity-specific search siblings, but the description is still complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: 'query' is defined as the artist search term, and 'limit' is defined as the maximum number of artists to return with its default of 20. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('artists on TIDAL'). It also matches common user phrasings, making it easy for an agent to identify that this tool is for artist-only lookups rather than generic searches.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly lists trigger phrases like 'Find the artist [name]' and 'Search for [artist name]', giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with search_tidal/search_tracks, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• search_playlistsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a search/read operation and notes the default limit, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements, whether the search covers owned vs. all playlists, or any pagination/result-shape details.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The purpose sentence is front-loaded, usage triggers are bulleted, and Args/Returns are clearly labeled. Every section adds information without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter search tool, this description is nearly complete: purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, and a return type are all present. It is only slightly incomplete because it doesn't detail the dictionary's structure or specify whether authentication is required.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains both parameters: query as 'playlist name, genre, mood, etc.' and limit as 'Maximum number of playlists to return (default: 20).' This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with 'Search specifically for playlists on TIDAL,' which names a specific verb, resource, and platform. This clearly differentiates it from sibling search_tracks, search_albums, search_artists, and search_tidal by narrowing the scope.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit trigger phrases like 'Find playlists about...' and 'Look for playlists with...', plus a catch-all 'Any playlist discovery request.' It stops short of stating when not to use it, such as using get_user_playlists for the user's own playlists or search_tidal for broad search.

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

• remove_tracks_from_playlistA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: it states that tracks are actually removed (mutating), supports ID/index removal, notes that indices are 0-based, and describes the return as a status/count dictionary. It does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or behavior when both track_ids and indices are supplied, but core execution behavior is more transparent than most.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured into call-trigger, mechanism, post-processing, and args sections, with no fluff. The examples and capitalization are not strictly necessary but aid agent matching. The slight repitition of the removal statement is minor.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies required args, selection-mode semantics, a 0-based index reminder, and return shape. It omits authentication and edge-case details, but is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and report results correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source: it explains that playlist_id is the required TIDAL ID, track_ids is an optional list of IDs, and indices is an optional list of 0-based positions, including the 'use this OR indices' condition. This fully compensates for the empty schema fields and supplies a useful constraint.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The opening line names a specific verb ('Remove'), resource ('tracks'), target context ('TIDAL playlist'), and selection method ('track IDs or position indices'). This clearly differentiates the operation from sibling tools like add_tracks_to_playlist, reorder_playlist_tracks, and delete_tidal_playlist.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The capitalized 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER' block gives explicit user-request patterns, so an agent knows exactly when to select it. It doesn't name exclusions or alternatives, like using delete_tidal_playlist for deleting an entire playlist, so the guidance is clear but not fully complete.

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

• reorder_playlist_tracksA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states that the operation mutates playlist order and highlights the non-obvious 0-based indexing convention. It also indicates the return value is a status dictionary, giving agents useful behavioral expectations, though it does not cover prerequisites or error conditions.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-organized with trigger phrases, args, and returns, and the usage examples add practical value. There is slight redundancy: the opening 'Move/reorder...' is restated by 'This function moves...', so not every sentence earns its place, but the structure is otherwise clear and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple three-parameter tool, the description provides sufficient context: all parameters are documented, the 0-based indexing behavior is explained, and the return type is described as a status dictionary even without an output schema. It omits detailed return fields and edge-case behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining playlist_id, from_index, and to_index, including their roles and the 0-based convention. It also marks all three as required, matching the schema. This is exactly the kind of parameter explanation needed when the schema provides only titles.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The opening sentence names a specific action ('Move/reorder') on a specific resource ('a track within a TIDAL playlist'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling add/remove/delete/update playlist tools. It also explains the operation further with 'moves a track from one position to another,' removing any ambiguity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' section with concrete natural-language examples and a catch-all ('Any request to change the order of tracks in a playlist'). It does not explicitly list when-not cases or alternatives, but among the siblings this is the only reorder operation, so the usage context is clear.

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

• get_user_mixesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only 'Fetches' nature, the return shape (dictionary with mixes and mix_count), and the fields present in each mix (id, title, sub_title, track_count). It does not mention authentication, errors, or rate limits, but for a simple zero-parameter fetch this is acceptable.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Every sentence earns its place. The description fronts the core purpose, then provides routing phrases, return-field details, a pointer to the sibling tool for follow-up action, and a concise return description. There is no fluff or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, what each mix contains, and how to proceed with get_mix_tracks(). An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. Auth requirements are implicitly covered by 'user's TIDAL' and the existence of tidal_login.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Under the rubric, zero parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter information, and the absence of parameters is fully consistent with the tool's structure.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetches the user's TIDAL algorithmic mixes') and gives concrete examples like 'My Daily Discovery' and 'New Arrivals.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_mix_tracks by explicitly directing the agent to that tool for retrieving tracks, making its purpose clear versus related tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit trigger phrases under 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' and tells the agent to use get_mix_tracks() for tracks. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus get_user_playlists or other list tools, but the focus on 'algorithmic mixes' gives clear contextual guidance.

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

• search_tracksA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  While no annotations are provided, the description clearly identifies this as a search operation that 'returns detailed track information' and explicitly states the return type as a dictionary. It does not fully disclose behaviors like pagination behavior, error handling, or whether it requires authentication (TIDAL login), but it is explicit about the search-and-return nature.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-organized and front-loaded with a clear purpose and usage triggers. The example queries are useful, though they occupy several lines; every section earns its place. The Args and Returns sections are clear and structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks explicit statements about authentication requirements, but sibling tools include tidal_login and get_listening_history, so the agent can infer the context. The description covers the essential call parameters and high-level return type.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining both parameters. It explains query as 'The search term (song title, artist name, or combination)' and limit as 'Maximum number of tracks to return (default: 20)'—both descriptions add meaning beyond the bare schema titles. It also notes that default limit is 20, which matches the schema's own default.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose—searching specifically for tracks/songs on TIDAL—with concrete query examples. It distinguishes itself from broader or different-content searches (albums, artists, playlists) through the explicit 'specifically for tracks' framing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit usage triggers ('USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR...') with concrete example requests, and clearly limits its scope to tracks/songs. Combined with the sibling-tool list showing separate search_albums/search_artists/search_playlists tools, the agent can route requests correctly.

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

• get_mix_tracksA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data, explains the limit parameter, and states the return shape (dictionary with tracks and track_count). It does not cover auth or error cases, but for a simple read operation this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well structured: purpose, usage triggers, arguments, and return value. The trigger examples are slightly repetitive, but they add practical selection value and there is no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description provides all essential context for calling the tool: where to obtain mix_id, the meaning of limit, expected return shape, and clear usage triggers. Since there is no output schema, the described return value is especially important and is included.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates. mix_id is explained as coming from get_user_mixes() or get_listening_history(), and limit is defined as the maximum number of tracks with a default of 100.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The first sentence states the exact operation ('Retrieves the tracks') on a specific resource ('a specific TIDAL mix'). The examples clarify that this is about mix contents, distinguishing it from playlist, search, and recommendation siblings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' trigger examples, including listening-history mixes returned by get_listening_history(). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use list or alternative tool names, but the usage context is strongly signaled.

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

• recommend_tracksA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the fallback to user favorites, warns against including seed tracks, disallows duplicates, and states the return type. It could also mention authentication requirements or read-only behavior explicitly, but the main behavioral traits are well covered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with usage triggers and has a clear section layout, but it is noticeably verbose. The opening and the third paragraph restate the same seed behavior, the URL reminder appears more than once, and the 10-step output protocol is extensive. Most content is useful, but some sentences are redundant.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given there is no output schema, the description still gives enough context: return shape is a dictionary with seed and recommended tracks, parameter behavior is explained, seed exclusion and duplicate rules are stated, and response formatting expectations are specified. The tool is complex, but the description covers the necessary invocation and result-handling guidance.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully documents all four parameters: track_ids as optional seeds, filter_criteria as preferences, and both limit parameters with their defaults and the intent to keep defaults large. This is a strong compensation for the bare schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Recommends music tracks based on specified track IDs or can use the user's TIDAL favorites.' It also provides concrete trigger examples and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_favorite_tracks and search_tracks by focusing on recommendations rather than retrieval or search.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' followed by a list of request types, including 'What should I listen to?' and track/music suggestions. It also explains the fallback behavior when no track IDs are provided, giving the agent clear conditions for invocation.

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

• get_playlist_tracksA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses automatic pagination, the default fetch-all behavior, the effect of limit and offset, and the exact pagination metadata returned (total_track_count, has_more, next_offset). There are no hidden side effects or surprise behaviors left unexplained.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is longer than necessary and contains some redundancy—the purpose is stated twice—but it is well structured with clear sections, front-loaded usage triggers, and parameter explanations. The processing instructions are extra but useful for downstream response formatting.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  This tool has no output schema, yet the description documents the return dictionary, pagination metadata, and parameter semantics. It also provides a prerequisite workflow via get_user_playlists() and gives presentation guidance. An agent has everything needed to select, invoke, and interpret this tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explains playlist_id as required and how to obtain it, describes limit as the maximum tracks with default None meaning fetch all, and defines offset as a zero-based index with default 0. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves all tracks from a specified TIDAL playlist.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by scoping to playlist tracks, and it even points to get_user_playlists() for obtaining the playlist_id, reinforcing what this tool is not.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides an explicit, highlighted list of user-phrase triggers and explains when to use limit/offset for large playlists. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name sibling alternatives like get_favorite_tracks or get_mix_tracks, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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

• tidal_loginA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the tool is non-blocking and stateful, enumerates all possible response statuses, explains what each means, and tells the agent what to do for each. No behavioral surprises are left hidden.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear response cases and front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds useful information, and the formatting makes the states easy for an agent to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  This is a stateful, multi-call authentication flow with no output schema, so the description must be thorough to compensate. It fully covers the pending, success, and error cases, the user interaction requirement, polling behavior, and URL stability. Nothing essential is missing.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return values instead.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool authenticates with TIDAL via OAuth device flow, which is a specific action and resource. It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which are music/playlist operations rather than authentication.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit step-by-step usage guidance: show the verification_url verbatim, ask the user to approve, then call the tool again. It also explains that polling may be needed and that the same URL is returned until expiration. This is unusually actionable guidance.

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