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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds genuinely useful pagination behavior by explaining that cursor is an offset and must be passed from the previous response, which goes beyond the schema's generic wording.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the core operation and the most important pagination detail. There is no wasted wording.

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?

The description covers what the tool does and how pagination works, and the rich schema covers parameters and the compact-vs-expanded response choice. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the result shape would be ideal, but the 'usage counts' hint plus expand parameter make it sufficient.

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 q, count, cursor, and expand thoroughly. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond restating the cursor offset behavior, which the schema already covers.

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 names a specific verb ('search') and resource ('sounds'), and adds the distinctive detail that results include usage counts. This is enough to set it apart from sibling search tools like tiktok_search_creators or tiktok_search_hashtags.

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 phrase 'Keyword search over sounds' clearly establishes when the tool applies, and the sibling set contains no other sound keyword-search tool, so confusion is unlikely. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong.

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