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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'closest candidates,' which signals fuzzy matching and plural returns, but it does not describe no-match behavior or candidate count. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the core transformation is front-loaded and the downstream pointer is a single clause. 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 two-parameter read-only resolver, the schema covers the parameters and annotations cover side effects. The description states the output (music id) and the desired next tool, which is most of the contract. It does not spell out the exact return shape, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so both title and expand are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter syntax, constraints, or format details beyond echoing the title's role. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource ('Sound title') and the result ('music id'), and 'closest candidates' signals fuzzy resolution rather than exact search. It is terse but unambiguous, though it lacks a verb like 'resolves' and does not explicitly contrast with tiktok_search_sounds.

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?

'Feed the id to tiktok_sound_videos' provides a concrete downstream instruction and implies this is the resolution step before fetching videos. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it with tiktok_search_sounds, but the intended workflow is clear.

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