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.