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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'safe, read-only tool.' It adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: the return format (array of up to 300 sounds with id, title, author, userCount) and the default fields. No contradiction with annotations; it provides value without repeating everything.

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 description is concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the purpose, then explain usage, return format, and safety. There is no fluff, and the information is well-organized. It could be slightly more structured but is effective.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (array of sounds up to 300 with specified fields). It also mentions the default fields and the intended downstream use. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases, but for a search tool with no output schema, it provides the essential information needed for an agent to call 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 63%, and the description adds some context for the fields and limit parameters (e.g., default fields and max 300). However, it does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters like userPrompt or feedback, and the schema already provides decent descriptions for keyword, limit, and fields. The description adds marginal value but is not essential for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' with the resource 'Tiktok sounds/music' by keyword, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool getTiktokPostsBySound by explaining the workflow: discover sounds first, then pass the id to find posts. This makes the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains the intended usage pattern (discover sounds, then pass id to getTiktokPostsBySound) and mentions that it is read-only and safe. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or contrast with other search tools (like searchTiktokUsers), the usage context is clear and points to the relevant alternative.

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