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.