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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which is unusual for a "detail"/lookup endpoint and is not explained anywhere in the description. No context is added about cost, rate limits, data freshness, or why a detail fetch would not be read-only.

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?

It is a single short fragment, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than economy — there is no front-loaded statement of what the call actually does or returns.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the returned video data, yet it says nothing about response shape, fields, or what `include=core` yields. For a detail endpoint in a large tool family, this leaves the agent guessing.

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 100%, so all three parameters (id, country, include) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing on semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies; notably the non-obvious `include=core` option is left entirely to the schema.

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 only restates the title and name: "TikTok Commerce Intelligence CJ: videos/detail API." It does not say in plain language what the tool returns (video performance metrics? metadata?) or how it differs from siblings like nexscope_data_cj_videos_search or nexscope_data_cj_videos_reviews. This is effectively a tautology with a namespace prefix.

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 call this tool versus the many neighbouring video/creator/product tools, no mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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