Get a mix image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that the returned URL is legacy-format and constrained to supported sizes, but says nothing about expiration of the URL or what 'legacy' implies behaviorally.

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 that states the return value and its size constraint with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with an enum parameter.

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 annotations cover safety. However, for a tool sitting next to both tidal_get_mix_v2_image and tidal_get_mix, the description omits the routing guidance and any mention of the three supported sizes, leaving meaningful 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% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden. It only alludes to the dimensions parameter via 'at a supported size' without listing the 320/640/1500 values, and gives no detail on mix_id format. Partial compensation, so a middling score.

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 a ... mix image URL'), and the word 'legacy' implicitly distinguishes it from the newer tidal_get_mix_v2_image sibling. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction from 'legacy' alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus tidal_get_mix_v2_image or tidal_get_mix, nor any prerequisite such as authentication or mix availability. 'Legacy' hints at older mixes but leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.

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