Find TIDAL albums by barcode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-query profile is covered. The description adds only a minimal behavioral detail: matches are resolved exactly and may return multiple albums ('matching albums'), with no mention of pagination, auth, or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded, contains no filler, and communicates the core action and input format efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema for return values, and annotations cover its safety profile. However, with 0% parameter description coverage, the description should at least clarify pagination or usage boundaries; it currently leaves the agent to infer limit/offset behavior and does not distinguish the tool from other album retrieval methods.

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 should compensate for all three parameters. It meaningfully describes 'barcode' as an exact UPC/EAN, but says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset', leaving pagination semantics entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('matching albums') with the identifying input ('exact UPC/EAN barcode'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like tidal_search or tidal_get_album, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 phrase 'exact UPC/EAN barcode' implies this tool should be used when the agent has a precise barcode rather than free-text search, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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