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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: a hard dependency on prior context lookups and that the body must match a structure discovered elsewhere. It does not mention failure modes when the body is wrong, which keeps it below 5.

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 workflow position is front-loaded and the numbered prerequisites are easy to scan; every line drives an action. Minor waste in the 'xxxxxx' placeholder literals and the redundant closing 'Follow the schema exactly' after already mandating step 2.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Given a single opaque body parameter, the prerequisites plus the pointer to the exact body structure are what an agent needs to invoke it correctly; nothing essential is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, a free-form `body` object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides essentially nothing. The description compensates by telling the agent where to derive the body shape (query_contexts step 2) and to 'Follow the schema exactly', which is meaningful guidance even though it delegates rather than enumerating fields.

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 says it queries 'TikTok Profile data' and positions itself as the final step of a workflow, but it never states what kind of data comes back or what operations the free-form body can carry. An agent knows it is a query, but not what it is querying for, so it cannot distinguish this from execute_action on substance alone.

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?

Explicitly prescribes two prerequisite calls to query_contexts ('request=accounts', then 'request=actions_details' with actions from available_actions) and states 'Always call step 2 to see the exact body structure before querying.' That is a clear when-and-how gate with the alternative tool named, though neither execute_action nor prompts_menu is mentioned as a comparison or exclusion.

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