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.