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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it returns video and image posts, filters out non-post results like user cards, and supports page_token pagination. It also warns that page tokens are opaque and must be passed back unchanged, which goes beyond the schema. Minor operational details like rate limits are absent, but the key behavioral profile is well covered.

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 with purpose, then moves to routing rules and capabilities. The long second sentence covers several distinct points without redundancy, though it could be split for readability. Every clause serves a purpose; no 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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are already handled. The description covers when to use, when not to use, pagination rules, content_type filtering, and post-search reuse of share_url/post_id. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly in context.

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 keyword, page_token, and content_type semantics. The description adds some contextual reinforcement (e.g., content_type filtering and page_token pagination), but most parameter meaning is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not significantly extend 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, '搜索 TikTok 作品' (search TikTok posts), and states that it returns both video and image posts. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming detail/comment tools for when a link or post_id is already available.

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 explicitly conditioned: use when the user needs to find posts by a search term. It gives clear exclusions — if a post link exists, use detail or comment tools; if a post_id exists and comments are needed, use the comment-by-ID tool — and notes that no search is needed in those cases. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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