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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: per-call price, x402 payment passed in _meta, no charge for bad input or no match, pagination via next_cursor, and returned fields.

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?

Purpose and return information are front-loaded. Pricing and payment details are packed into a long final sentence, but every element is relevant. It could be split for readability, yet it remains appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it lists fields, pagination, pricing, and failure charging. Missing only sibling routing, which is not essential to calling the tool correctly.

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 q and cursor are already documented. The description adds that q may be a keyword or hashtag and restates next_cursor, but does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema. 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 and resource: search public TikTok videos by keyword or hashtag. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as tiktok_videos, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Mentions 'Trend and hashtag research' as an implied use case, but never names alternatives like tiktok_videos or explains when not to use this tool. Guidance is suggested rather than explicit.

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