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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the async job_id return, the required polling step, and the point-cost model (5P per result, 10P base, reserving max_results). That billing and async behavior is genuinely additive context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the English and Korean sentences are near-verbatim duplicates (the job_id/polling statement appears twice), and the point-cost note appears only in Korean, so information is unevenly distributed. Efficient in intent but with redundant phrasing.

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 an async job-submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it searches, that it returns a job_id, and where to retrieve results. It stops short of describing pagination, result limits per job, or error/partial-failure behavior.

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 keyword, max_results, and idempotency_key are already documented in the schema. The description restates the reservation behavior ("max_results 만큼 예약하고 실제 결과 건수만 차감"), adding marginal value but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Search TikTok videos by keyword or hashtag") plus scope ("up to 50") and the returned fields (views, likes, comments, shares). It also flags the create-job pattern and names the sibling to poll (scrape_jobs_status), so an agent can distinguish this from tiktok_profile and the *_create posting tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent this is asynchronous and to "poll scrape_jobs_status for the result," which is real routing guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over other search tools or any exclusion conditions, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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