Get an artist image

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 that the result is a URL and that the size is square, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about missing-image behavior, URL expiry, or fallback sizes.

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; the resource and the size semantics are both stated up front.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (returns a URL at a given square size). The gaps are minor: no note on what happens when no image exists and no artist_id guidance.

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 compensate. 'Square size' usefully clarifies that the dimensions parameter applies to both width and height rather than one axis, which is not stated in the schema. However, it says nothing about the artist_id parameter or the 80–3000 bounds and 750 default, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource ('Return an artist-image URL'), and the resource name distinguishes it from the many sibling image tools (album_image, playlist_image, video_image, mix_image). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings in prose, but the resource is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. tidal_get_artist, tidal_get_artist_page, which likely also surface images) or any precondition such as needing a valid artist_id from a search. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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