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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, and the description does not contradict this. It adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the tool converts URLs into share links and share text rather than fetching content, and it warns against invalid URL types.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core function and output, then immediately providing routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and no redundant filler is present.

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?

Given the single parameter, fully detailed schema, output schema presence, and safety annotations, the description covers all needed operational context. It explains accepted inputs, rejected inputs, the alternative ID-based entry, and the boundary with content-reading 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%, and the schema already fully explains the accepted URL forms and exclusions. The tool description repeats some of this but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 names a specific verb ('生成') and resource (抖音分享短链接和完整分享文案), and clearly distinguishes this URL-entry tool from the aweme_id entry point. It also differentiates from detail/content-reading tools by explicitly routing content reads elsewhere.

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 states when to use the ID entry instead ('已知 aweme_id 时使用 ID 入口') and when to use the detail tool for content ('读取作品内容请使用详情工具'). The schema description adds clear negative constraints, such as not passing play resource links or user profile links.

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