List artist EPs and singles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of value by signaling pagination ('page through'), which aligns with the limit/offset params, but it discloses nothing about ordering, empty results, or result shape beyond what the output schema provides.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a tool with three params and many near-identical siblings.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotation covers mutation risk. However, for a paginated list tool surrounded by many similar artist-catalog tools, the absence of any usage distinction or param context leaves the definition at minimum viable.

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 carry the burden for limit, offset, and artist_id, and it says nothing about any of them. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, which prevents a 1, but the description adds no semantics (e.g., valid ID source, default page size) beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('page through') and resource ('an artist's EPs and singles'), which distinguishes it from siblings like tidal_get_artist_albums, tidal_get_artist_other_albums, and tidal_get_artist_top_tracks. It is clear what subset of an artist's catalog this returns, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many closely-named siblings (get_artist_albums, get_artist_other_albums, get_artist_top_tracks). The agent must infer the distinction purely from the tool name and the phrase 'EPs and singles'.

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