List favorite videos

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 usefully adds that results are paged rather than returned in full, but says nothing about page size limits, ordering defaults, or that results depend on the user's saved collection.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail the parameters need.

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 no explanation. However, with four undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% across all four parameters (limit, offset, order, order_direction), so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate. 'Page through' vaguely gestures at limit/offset but gives no syntax, defaults, or ordering semantics.

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 ('videos saved in My Collection'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like tidal_list_favorite_tracks, tidal_browse_videos, and tidal_get_video. It is clear but relies on the internal term 'My Collection' without explaining it.

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 such as tidal_browse_videos or tidal_search, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication or that favorites must exist). Usage is only implied by the name.

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