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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the public/private likes constraint and the fact that a private list silently returns no videos — a critical trap that prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as 'creator has no liked videos.'

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the single most important caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, all four parameters are documented in the schema and the main behavioral failure mode is disclosed. The only minor gap is that the description does not hint at what the compact vs. expanded response difference means for output handling, but expand's purpose is already covered in 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 description coverage is 100%, so id, count, cursor, and expand are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and per the calibration baseline this is an adequate 3.

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?

"Videos a creator has liked" states a specific verb and resource. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tiktok_creator_videos (posted videos vs. liked videos), though the description does not explicitly name that sibling for contrast. Purpose is unambiguous without opening the 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?

The description gives decisive when-to-use context: the tool only works when the account keeps likes public, and most accounts do not. This tells the agent when results will be empty and frames expectations before invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the situational guidance is strong.

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