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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral note — results are user-generated content and should be treated as untrusted input — which is valuable prompt-injection context. However, it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the safety caveat. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and a safety caveat but omits result shape/ordering and how this tool relates to the many near-identical search/get siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds a hint about matching semantics (trigram/ILIKE, i.e. fuzzy substring matching rather than exact match), but no syntax, casing, or multi-term behavior beyond that. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Search TikTok comments by text'. The parenthetical '(pg_trgm ILIKE)' adds matching-mechanism detail. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_comments or get_tt_comments_by_user, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the near-duplicate siblings (search_comments, get_tt_comments_by_user, get_tt_comment_by_id). The agent must infer relevance from the name alone.

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