Search the TIDAL catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'reads public catalog metadata and changes nothing' largely restates structured data. It does add the scope constraint 'public catalog', which is mildly useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or rate limits despite offset/limit parameters.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no padding. The second sentence, however, mostly duplicates the readOnly annotation rather than adding new information, so it does not fully earn its place.

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, but with four parameters, an enum-typed media_types field, and dozens of sibling retrieval tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent on scope and result shaping. It is minimally viable, not complete.

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 75% (query, limit, media_types documented; offset undocumented), and the description contributes nothing about how query text is interpreted or how media_types defaults to tracks. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the parameter burden.

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 clear verb+resource ('Search TIDAL'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish itself from the large set of siblings that also retrieve catalog data (tidal_browse_*, tidal_get_*, tidal_list_*), so an agent must infer that this is the free-text query entry point.

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 at all: nothing says to prefer this over tidal_browse_explore or the many tidal_get_* lookups when the agent has a name rather than an ID. The only qualifying statement is about side effects, not about tool selection.

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