SocialDataX TikTok MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that this is a read-only balance query. It adds useful context by tying the balance to the current API Key and pointing to the billing dashboard for recharges. No contradictions or hidden side effects are indicated.

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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides an actionable billing link. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only balance query with an output schema, annotations, and a billing link, the description is fully sufficient. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters Belarusand schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The description still adds value by explaining what the returned balance represents.

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 a specific action (query) and resource (current API Key account's SocialDataX points balance), including Chinese and English terms. It is unambiguous and obviously distinct from the YouTube-focused sibling 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?

The description identifies the exact context: querying the balance for the current API Key accounttons. It also provides a relevant follow-up URL for recharging. There are no competing sibling tools for balance checking, so no explicit alternatives are needed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: page_token is opaque and must be passed back unmodified and not reused across different request chains, and it explains the parent_comment_id/reply_to_comment_id relationship. It stops short of auth requirements or throttling disclosure, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose and pagination support are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage rules and the parent/child semantics. It is dense but every sentence carries routing or constraint information; slight redundancy between the description and the schema's own comments keeps it from a 5.

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?

With 3 params, 2 required, full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values and correctly focuses on how to acquire IDs and pages. It covers the acquisition flow and pagination contract well; only minor gaps remain (no mention of token expiry or failure/empty-result behavior).

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly (including type warnings). The description still adds value the schema lacks: the rule not to pass the reply item's own comment_id and the opaque-token reuse constraint, which sharpens how comment_id and page_token must be supplied.

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?

States a specific verb (获取回复/get replies), resource (TikTok 一级评论的回复), and scope (identified by post_id + comment_id, paginated by page_token). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling first-level comment tools by instructing to call '对应一级评论工具' to fill missing IDs, so an agent can separate replies from top-level comments without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use directly when a complete valid ID combo exists, call the corresponding first-level comment tool when post_id/link exists but required IDs are missing, and ask the user when post-location info is absent. It also adds a negative rule ('不要传回复项自身的 comment_id'), which is exactly the when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it retrieves top-level comments and supports page_token pagination, which is useful but limited; it does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or failure behavior.

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 with zero waste. It states the action, input, and a key pagination feature concisely.

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 simple read operation, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is almost complete. It clearly states what is returned (top-level comments) and how to page, though it could briefly mention that replies are handled by a separate tool.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description only mentions post_id and page_token pagination, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (获取) and resource (一级评论) scoped to TikTok post_id, implicitly distinguishing from siblings that fetch by URL or fetch replies. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternative tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a post_id, but provides no guidance on when to prefer it over tiktok_get_post_comments_by_url or tiktok_get_post_comment_replies. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: results are limited to top-level comments (not replies) and page_token pagination is supported. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape, but those gaps are minor against 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and action, then appends the pagination capability. No redundant or filler content.

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 read-only listing tool with a fully documented 2-parameter schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the core purpose and pagination behavior. The only meaningful gap is the absence of guidance on choosing between the URL-based and post_id-based sibling 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 page_token is documented in exhaustive detail in the schema, including opacity and non-reuse rules. The description only repeats that page_token pagination is supported, adding no syntax or constraint information beyond the schema, so the 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 a specific verb and resource ('获取一级评论' / fetch top-level comments) and names the URL-based entry point, and it explicitly scopes results to top-level comments, which distinguishes it from the replies sibling. It does not mention or distinguish itself from tiktok_get_post_comments_by_post_id, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by '根据...链接' (based on the link): an agent can infer this is for when a post URL is available, but the description never states when to prefer it over tiktok_get_post_comments_by_post_id or tiktok_get_post_comment_replies. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that both video and photo posts are supported, but it does not disclose further behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or failure behavior. It does not contradict 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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the verb, resource, and supported content types in minimal space.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with a rich input schema, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical information needed for basic use is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including examples and an explicit instruction not to pass post_id instead of url. The tool description only restates that the lookup is URL-based and adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('获取') and a specific resource (TikTok 作品详情), and explicitly scopes the tool to video and photo post URLs. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that fetch comments, user info, or post lists.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you have a TikTok post page URL and need post details. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like tiktok_get_post_comments_by_url or tiktok_get_user_info_by_profile_url, nor does it mention exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation against external data. The description adds only that the result is public profile data, which is useful but minimal context beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the required input type with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 low complexity, full schema documentation, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It is only slightly incomplete because it lacks usage guidance relative to the sibling 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 single parameter is fully documented with an example in the schema. The description does not add any format, parsing, or validation details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: fetching public profile information by TikTok homepage URL. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool that fetches by TikTok ID, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify scope beyond the tool name.

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 '根据 TikTok 用户主页链接' implies the tool is used when a profile URL is available, giving an implied usage condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative tiktok_get_user_info_by_tiktok_id.

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

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare the safety profile, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of rate limits, authentication, or what "公开资料" covers. The phrase 公开资料 is consistent with the annotations but adds no new behavioral detail.

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 short sentence with zero filler is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently dense.

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 one-parameter read tool with a rich schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the minimum needed to invoke it. The missing piece is disambiguation from the sibling profile-URL lookup, which leaves the definition merely adequate.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it exhaustively (non-empty, no @, no profile URL, acceptable sources). The description contributes no formatting or source guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 a specific verb and resource (获取用户公开资料) plus the lookup key (TikTok 号), which is enough to distinguish it from search- or post-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative, tiktok_get_user_info_by_profile_url, so the read-vs-read ambiguity between the two lookup tools remains.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the profile-URL variant or search_users, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the choice from the parameter name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-network profile are known. The description adds only the pagination capability, which is a thin behavioral addition. No disclosure of rate limits, return shape, or ordering. With annotations covering the basics, a 3 is fair.

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 with zero waste. Everything stated is relevant and no padding 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with a full output schema and complete parameter schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimalist. It does not mention any constraints or differences from the near-identical sibling, leaving some ambiguity for selection.

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 page_token schema description already thoroughly explains its opaque, unmodifiable, non-reusable nature. The description adds only the fact that page_token enables pagination, which is marginal value beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (获取) and resource (作品列表) scoped by profile URL. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tiktok_get_user_posts_by_tiktok_id, which likely retrieves the same resource by a different identifier. No explicit sibling differentiation.

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 mention of page_token pagination implies a usage context (fetching a paginated list), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the tiktok_id variant or other siblings. Usage is implied at best.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that pagination via page_token is supported, which is already spelled out in the schema, and says nothing about result ordering, page size, or rate/credit behavior.

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 with the resource first and the pagination capability second; every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema covering return values, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. It would be stronger with a one-line note on the alternative by-profile-url tool or on how to detect the end of paging.

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 both parameters are documented in detail (format constraints for tiktok_id, opaque-token rules for page_token), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates that page_token enables paging and adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (获取用户作品列表) plus the key it operates on (TikTok 号), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name the obvious sibling tiktok_get_user_posts_by_profile_url or explain how the two differ, so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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?

Usage is only implied by the key: the reader infers this is the right call when holding a tiktok_id rather than a profile URL. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives such as the profile_url variant.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses long-polling behavior (up to 240 seconds) and guarantees that no reprocessing is triggered. This is valuable behavioral context that prevents duplicate submissions and sets wait expectations.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then packs in the key constraints: wait limit, no reprocessing, and no resubmission. No filler or redundant explanation.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the ID source, polling behavior, and side-effect absence. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 schema's job_id description already specifies valid sources and exclusions. The tool description restates this without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the 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 a concrete action—'查询TikTok视频口播转文字任务状态' (query speech-to-text task status)—and clearly ties it to job_id. This distinguishes it from the submit siblings and the other TikTok data-fetching 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 says the tool is for continuing unfinished tasks, instructs the agent not to resubmit jobs, and points to submit-tool-returned job_id as valid input. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance while naming the source tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it returns both video and image posts, filters out user cards and other non-post results, and supports page_token pagination. It does not discuss rate limits or result caps, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered guidance and constraints, each sentence carrying distinct information (routing rules, continuation reuse, filtering, pagination). No redundancy or filler despite the length.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers routing, filtering behavior, pagination continuation and result reuse, leaving no material gap for a read-only search tool with fully documented parameters.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents keyword, page_token and content_type in depth. The description adds meaning the schema does not: content_type semantics as a filter, the non-post result filtering, and the instruction to reuse share_url/post_id when continuing from results, which guides downstream calls.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('搜索 TikTok 作品') and immediately scopes the result set ('可返回视频和图片作品'). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the detail and comment tools it is not, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('用户需要按搜索词查找作品时使用') and two explicit when-not-to-use cases with named alternatives: existing post link → detail/comment tools, existing post_id → comment-by-ID tool, '均无需先调用搜索'. It also explains how to continue from a prior search by reusing share_url/post_id.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it does not return post or user details and does not support pagination, which sets agent expectations about result shape and result-set size.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core purpose leads, followed by scope limits and routing. Dense but no sentence is wasted, though the run-on clause structure could be broken up slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description already covers scope, no-pagination, and alternative routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 single keyword parameter is already well documented in the schema (non-empty keyword, no links/IDs/pagination tokens). The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource (获取 TikTok 搜索框联想词) and immediately draws the boundary that it returns neither posts nor users. This distinguishes it from sibling tiktok_search_posts and the detail tools without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use text for post search, search posts directly when a clear term exists, and use the corresponding detail tools when post/user profile links are already available. Both when-to-use and alternatives are named.

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

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the data quirk that following_count and posted_content_count are currently null, and states the precise pagination rule (continue only when next_page_token is non-empty). These are non-obvious traits an agent must know.

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?

Purpose and pagination rule are front-loaded and efficient, but the output-chaining clause is stated twice for tiktok_id and profile_url with near-identical wording, adding mild redundancy to an otherwise dense description.

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 a 2-param read-only search with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers query scope, pagination continuation, known null fields, and how returned identifiers feed sibling tools. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 keyword and page_token are already fully documented in the schema, including the non-empty pattern and the page_token opaque-token rules. The description reinforces the pagination-continuation rule but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource (搜索 TikTok 用户) and the query types it accepts (用户名、昵称、品牌名). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tiktok_search_posts and tiktok_search_suggestions, which target different resources.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and, crucially, when-NOT-to-use: if the exact user identifier is already known and only follow-up data is needed, skip the search and call the corresponding entry directly. It also names which downstream tools accept the returned tiktok_id/profile_url, routing the agent precisely.

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

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behavior: the call waits up to 240 seconds and returns a job_id plus next-step query action if the job is not complete. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it does not detail success-path behavior or error conditions.

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 compact sentence carries the essential information: input identifier, wait limit, and non-blocking fallback with job_id. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter submit tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the key operational facts. It could be more complete by naming the polling sibling tiktok_get_video_speech_text_job or the URL submission alternative, but 'next query action' hints at the workflow.

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?

The input schema already fully documents aweme_id, including the requirement to pass it as a string, not convert to number, and the post_id alias. The description restates the post_id reuse without adding extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 a clear action and resource: submit a speech-to-text task for a TikTok video by aweme_id, and notes that a post_id can be reused. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tiktok_submit_video_speech_text_by_url, so some differentiation relies on the tool name.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a TikTok video aweme_id or a content_type=video post_id. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the URL-based alternative, stopping short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent call. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it waits up to 240 seconds, returns a job_id if incomplete, and hints at a follow-up query. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate latency and response.

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 a single, dense sentence that conveys the action, the wait behavior, and the return contract. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information (submit task) is front-loaded. No extraneous words.

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 tool's role as a submission action, the description covers the essential contract: what it does, how long it blocks, and what it returns. It does not name the exact query tool for later retrieval, but the sibling 'tiktok_get_video_speech_text_job' and the phrase 'next query action' provide enough context. The presence of an output schema further covers return structure, so missing details are minor.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the video_url parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add new meaning about the parameter (e.g., URL format validation or required patterns). It stays at the baseline of 3 because the schema handles parameter explanation sufficiently.

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 a specific action (submit a speech-to-text task for a TikTok video), the resource (TikTok video via URL), and key behavior (waits up to 240 seconds, returns job_id). It distinguishes from the sibling by URL vs aweme_id through the tool name, and no ambiguity remains.

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 implies usage (submit a video transcription task by URL) but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over the aweme_id variant, nor does it name the companion query tool. It mentions 'next query action' but doesn't specify the tool, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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