List other artist appearances

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 minor behavioral hint via 'Page through', which aligns with the limit/offset parameters, but it discloses nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or result ordering. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though arguably too terse given the gaps it leaves unaddressed.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the definition still leaves key gaps: no sibling differentiation, no explanation of the required artist_id, and no usage context. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and many look-alike siblings, this is under-specified.

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 for three undocumented parameters (artist_id, limit, offset). It only loosely gestures at pagination with 'Page through' and never mentions which artist is being scoped or the meaning of the id. It adds little meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 verb ('Page through') and a resource ('compilations and other album appearances'), which is somewhat specific. However, it never states that results are scoped to a single artist, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like tidal_get_artist_albums or tidal_get_artist_ep_singles. The purpose is implied rather than sharp.

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 tidal_get_artist_albums, tidal_get_artist_ep_singles, or the other artist-scoped listers. No prerequisites (e.g., needing an artist_id) or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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