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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The one useful addition is that the tool is intended for ID lookup ahead of edits, but there is no disclosure of pagination, output shape, or what 'period spend/results' actually looks like in the returned card.

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: the field inventory front-loads what you get, and the second sentence supplies the operational intent. Nothing is redundant, though the fragmentary style leaves the core verb implicit.

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 eight optional parameters and no output schema, the definition relies heavily on the schema text, which is thorough but does not describe what the returned campaign card contains at a structural level. The description covers intent adequately but underplays the folder, account, and date scoping that the parameters allow.

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 every parameter, including the summary-vs-full detail enum, status values, date_range presets, and the account fallback rule, is documented within the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the full load.

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 lists the specific resource (TikTok campaigns) and the fields the tool surfaces (objective, status, budget, Smart+ flag, period spend/results), which is enough to distinguish it from tiktok_adgroups, tiktok_ads, and tiktok_performance. The verb is only implied by the bare noun phrase, so it is slightly less explicit than a full 'list campaigns' phrasing.

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?

'Use to find IDs before changes' gives a genuine when-to-use that fits the neighboring mutation tools (tiktok_set_status, tiktok_update_budget, tiktok_remove). It stops short, however, of naming alternatives for performance questions or of saying when-not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than complete.

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