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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: results are limited to one page, and the data is a real-time snapshot of live rooms. This helps set expectations about output shape and pagination without contradicting the annotations.

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 two tight sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a key limitation ('One page only') and a direct pointer to the relevant sibling tool. 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 simple search tool with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, that it is limited to one page, and where to go for stream URLs. It could mention result ordering or more about the compact response shape, but the expand parameter and schema partially cover that gap.

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 input schema fully documents q, count, and expand. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool searches for live rooms currently on air matching a keyword and includes the host's account. It names the specific resource ('live rooms') and directly distinguishes itself from the sibling tiktok_live_streams. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'One page only' and directs users to tiktok_live_streams when playable stream URLs are needed. This provides a concrete when-to-use/when-not-to-use distinction and names the alternative tool. The context for using this tool versus its siblings is clear.

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