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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds that the output is a short link plus copyable share text and that no prior search/detail call is needed. It does not go into failure modes or rate limits, but for a read-only generation tool the added context is sufficient.

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 sentences with the primary action first and no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the routing guidance is compactly included.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter), has an output schema, and carries safety annotations. The description plus schema is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; the by_url sibling is inferable from the tool name and the instruction not to pass links.

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% and the aweme_id parameter description already explains the expected format, reuse source, and exclusions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('生成') and resource ('抖音分享短链接和可复制的完整分享文案') and clearly scopes the operation to aweme_id input. This distinguishes it from siblings like douyin_get_video_share_link_by_url and the detail tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('用户已提供 aweme_id 时直接使用') and what not to do first ('无需先搜索或读取详情'). It also points to the detail tool as the alternative for reading content, and the parameter schema adds the when-not of passing links.

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