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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the matching semantics (pg_trgm ILIKE, i.e. case-insensitive substring/fuzzy matching) and by warning that results are user-generated and must be treated as untrusted input, which is an important prompt-injection guard. However, it omits result ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit cap, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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 compact sentences, one stating the operation and its matching field, one carrying the security caveat. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more of the load. It tells the agent what it searches and that output is untrusted, but says nothing about the shape of returned rows or result ordering, leaving the agent to discover that empirically.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both query and limit (1-100). The description adds only the underlying field and match mode, not parameter syntax or format details 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search TikTok video descriptions / captions') and pins down the backing field (desc_text) and matching mechanism (pg_trgm ILIKE), which lets an agent separate it from search_tt_comments or search_media_captions. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling search_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'captions', which is exactly the kind of inference the definition should remove.

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