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

The description discloses what the detail mode returns (revenue, viewers, duration, GPM, products sold) and implies the livestreamId comes from the rank endpoint, which is useful chain-of-calls context. It says nothing about authorization needs, quota/rate limits, or failure modes, and the readOnlyHint=false annotation sits oddly against a description that only describes read/search behavior—worth clarifying but not an outright contradiction.

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?

The valuable content is front-loaded in the first two sentences, but the trigger sentence repeats the same keyword set twice nearly verbatim (TikTok livestream ranking, live ranking, top livestreams, live shopping ranking, livestream detail all appear twice), inflating length without adding retrieval value.

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?

For a 13-parameter, dual-mode tool with no output schema, the description does cover both modes and the key returned metrics. But it omits mode-selection logic, does not note the schema's pagination ceiling (pageNumber 1-5) or the sortField default, and gives no differentiation from near-duplicate siblings—gaps an agent must resolve by reading the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the schema; the description only echoes region, currency, language, dateRange, and livestreamId. Crucially it never explains which filters belong to ranking mode versus detail mode, which is the semantic gap the schema alone cannot resolve.

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 states two concrete capabilities with verb+resource precision: leaderboard search ranked livestreams, and detail retrieval by livestreamId that returns revenue, viewers, duration, GPM, and units sold. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as nexscope_data_kd_livestream_rank, nexscope_data_kd_livestream_detail, or nexscope_chuhaijiang_tiktok_live_search, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this tool over those.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions (TikTok livestream ranking, live shopping ranking, livestream detail, live viewers) and even covers the implicit case where the user never mentions Kalodata. What is missing is any exclusion or routing rule—nothing says when to prefer this dual-mode tool over the separate Kalodata rank/detail siblings, nor when to use ranking mode versus detail mode beyond the presence of livestreamId.

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