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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying that the tool searches by name and returns a concrete set of fields like address, rating, and video count. It could mention data freshness or ranking, but that is a minor gap given the strong annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource, and appending only the most relevant output fields. 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 3-parameter search tool, the schema fully covers required inputs, count bounds, and expansion behavior, while the description covers the returned content. Since there is no output schema, the field list helps compensate. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing this over sibling search tools.

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% with detailed parameter explanations for q, count, and expand, including the important warning that expand=true can produce responses over 500KB. The main description only adds 'by name' and does not need to compensate for schema gaps, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource as 'TikTok places (points of interest)', and lists concrete result dimensions (address, coordinates, rating, review count, video count). This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling search_* tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 implies use when an agent needs to find TikTok places by name or keywords, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling search_* tools or when not to use it. There is no exclusion or alternative routing, so guidance is only implicit.

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