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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination via max_cursor/has_more, pinned posts only on page one, and the expand parameter's size implications. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the annotations cover the read-only/idempotent nature.

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 sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, pagination instructions are concise, and the pinned-post caveat is a single clause. Every sentence 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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns, ordering, pagination, and the expand option. It doesn't describe the exact stats fields returned, but the compact form is described as a summary and the expand option covers missing fields. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description's mention of max_cursor and has_more.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the pagination flow (max_cursor as cursor, has_more=0) and the expand parameter's trade-off (compact vs. complete response, can exceed 500 KB). This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'A creator's posts, newest first, with stats.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tiktok_creator_profile or tiktok_creator_liked_videos by focusing on the creator's own posts with stats. The pagination detail further clarifies the scope.

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 clear pagination instructions: 'Page by passing the previous response's max_cursor as cursor until has_more is 0.' It also notes that pinned posts appear on page one only, which is useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tiktok_creator_liked_videos or tiktok_search_videos, though the resource is clear enough.

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