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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the description's restatement of read-only adds little. What it does add beyond structured data is the billing model – 1 credit per result with a minimum of 1 per request – which is exactly the kind of cost context an agent needs before choosing a count.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, safety, and cost. The key scoping statement is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, a fully documented three-parameter schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers cost and side-effect posture adequately. It could say what a result contains (handle, follower count, etc.) to prepare the agent for the response, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%: query, count (1–10, default 10) and cursor are all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on query syntax, cursor paging, or how count interacts with cost beyond the per-result hint.

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 accounts'), which cleanly separates it from sibling tiktok_search_videos and the tiktok_get_user* family. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is offered: nothing says to prefer tiktok_get_user when a handle is already known, or to use this when only a keyword is available. The keyword-search framing implies usage, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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