List public user playlists

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 useful scoping ('public' only, scoped to the authenticated user) and hints at pagination via 'Page through', but says nothing about ordering, result caps, or what happens beyond the last page. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, 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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifiers ('public', 'authenticated user's') come before the pagination hint. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description omits any pagination mechanics despite 0% parameter coverage and gives no distinction from the near-identical sibling tidal_list_playlists. For a listing tool in a large sibling set, important selection and paging context is missing.

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% and neither 'limit' nor 'offset' is named or explained; the description only implies pagination vaguely with 'Page through'. The schema's constraints (limit max 100, offset max 100000, defaults) are left undocumented anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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') plus resource and scope ('the authenticated user's public playlists'), which lets an agent distinguish it from tidal_list_favorite_playlists and tidal_list_playlists at a high level. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the very similar sibling tidal_list_playlists, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., authentication is assumed via 'authenticated user'), and no mention of the alternative list tools (tidal_list_playlists, tidal_list_favorite_playlists) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer selection criteria entirely.

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