search_tidal

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.