tiktok-download-video

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

The description mentions billing per call (1 credit), which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, or if there are side effects. The schema hints at validation (challenge_id or challenge_name cannot be empty) but that is not in the description.

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 description is extremely short, but this is not conciseness—it is under-specification. The only useful information is the billing note; the core purpose statement is redundant. There is no structural organization or front-loading of essential details.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what challenge info is returned, how to combine the parameters, expected output, or any constraints. The billing and group labels do not make the tool usable.

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?

The description provides no explanation of the parameters challenge_id and challenge_name. The schema has a partial description for challenge_id, but the description itself adds nothing. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 'get challenge info' is a direct restatement of the tool name and title, providing no specific verb-resource detail or differentiation from the many sibling get_* tools. The added 'Group: Challenge(hashTag)' offers only a category label, not a clear purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_challengePosts or get_challengeSearch. The description omits any context about use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions billing ('1 Credits per call') but does not disclose pagination behavior (except implicitly via cursor schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid challenge IDs. The description is minimal and lacks meaningful behavioral context beyond cost.

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 description is extremely concise, consisting of only two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds useful context (group and billing). Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or redundancy. This is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of videos with metadata), how to handle pagination (though cursor is mentioned in schema), or any edge cases like empty results or error conditions. Without annotations, the description should provide more context to help the agent know what to expect.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it only repeats the function name. The schema already explains count, cursor, region, and challenge_id with examples and constraints, so the description adds no value here.

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 clearly states 'get challenge post videos' which specifies the action (get) and resource (challenge post videos). It also clarifies that 'Challenge' refers to hashtag via 'Group: Challenge(hashTag)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_challengeInfo (which gets challenge metadata) and get_challengeSearch (which searches challenges).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the schema parameter 'challenge_id' implies it should be used when a challenge ID is known, and siblings like get_challengeSearch likely help find that ID. The context is implied but not explicitly stated. There are no usage exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description has the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the credit cost per call, which is a minor detail, but it says nothing about return behavior, pagination side effects, rate limits, or access requirements. The billing note provides barely more than nothing.

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 description is very short, but brevity here is underspecification rather than conciseness. 'Search challenge' earns no meaningful connection to the tool's actual behavior, and the billing sentence, while informative, does not compensate for the missing operational explanation. It resembles the tautological under-specification pattern.

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?

This is a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters. The description fails to convey what results look like, pagination behavior, or any logic around search terms. A single line about credits is grossly insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool effectively. This is a completely inadequate contextual description.

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?

The description adds zero information about the three parameters (count, cursor, keywords), leaving all meaning to the schema. Schema coverage is partial (67%) since keywords lacks a description, but the description makes no attempt to clarify keyword behavior or how the parameters work together. This is below the baseline threshold.

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 'search challenge' essentially restates the tool name and title without adding a concrete scope. 'Group: Challenge(hashTag)' suggests the resource type but does not explain what searching a challenge actually does or how it differs from sibling challenge tools like get_challengeInfo or get_challengePosts. This is closer to a tautology than a clear functional statement.

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 guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_feedSearch or get_searchUser. The description lacks any context around intended use cases, limitations, or prerequisites. The minimal 'search challenge' offers no implicit or explicit usage direction.

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

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 mentions billing (1 credit) and grouping but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. The word 'get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 description is very short and avoids fluff, but it largely restates the title and lacks structural value. The billing note is useful, but overall this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description, the tool lacks key operational context such as how pagination works, how to retrieve all comments, default count behavior, and when to use get_commentReply instead. The schema helps for individual parameters but does not cover overall API usage.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions and examples: url accepts a URL or video ID, count has max 50, and cursor hints at pagination with 'hasMore is True'. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no additional parameter context, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('get') and resource ('comment list by video'), so the tool's core purpose is identifiable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_commentReply or other video-related comment APIs.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commentReply. It only labels it as 'Comment Related API' and mentions billing, without any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a billing cost of 1 credit but does not describe pagination behavior (beyond schema hints), error scenarios, rate limits, or any side effects. The schema covers count and cursor partially, but the description adds minimal transparency.

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 description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus two additional clauses. It front-loads the primary purpose immediately. The extra info about group and billing is minor but not redundant. It is not bloated, though its brevity sacrifices substance.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides only a one-line purpose and does not explain return values, pagination, required fields, or any behavioral expectations. The schema offers partial parameter descriptions but the overall context is lacking.

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?

The description provides no parameter explanation beyond what the schema already contains. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like video_id and comment_id, but it does not. The parameters are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a reply list using a comment ID, which is a specific verb+resource+identifier. It is not a tautology and matches the title. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_commentList, though the name implies it is for replies to a comment.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commentList. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid comment_id), exclusions, or context for when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which is useful behavioral context about cost. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, data scope, or any side effects. It is a read operation but nothing beyond that.

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 description is very brief and to the point. It includes the group and billing info in the same line, which is efficient but slightly cluttered. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope, no fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It could mention that it lists videos, possibly pagination, or the relationship to region list. But for a simple listing tool, it is minimally sufficient.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minor context: 'by region', but the parameter descriptions already explain 'region code' and 'count' with max 20. The description does not add significant semantic value 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?

The description states 'get feed video list by region', which is a specific verb+resource with a clear scoping parameter (region). It distinguishes from siblings like get_regionList and get_feedSearch, but the name 'get_feedList' is somewhat generic, and the description could be more explicit about what 'feed' entails (e.g., a feed of videos).

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?

The description gives a Group: 'Feed Related API' and mentions billing per call, which implies when to use, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_feedSearch or get_regionList. It lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and billing, but reveals nothing about side effects, read-only nature, pagination behavior, authentication, rate limits, or result format. The lack of any safety or operational context is a critical gap.

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 description is extremely brief, echoing the title and adding only group/billing info. While not verbose, it is under-specified and fails to structure content for usability. The single sentence offers no breakdown that would help an agent decide on usage or parameters.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making it moderately complex. The description provides none of the essential context—return values, pagination logic (hasMore, cursor), default behaviors, or required fields. It is far from complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The description adds no parameter information. Schema coverage is only 50% (descriptions for count, sort_type, publish_time), leaving cursor, region, and keywords without explanations. The description does nothing to compensate for the uncovered parameters, forcing the agent to guess meanings from examples alone.

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 clearly states the tool searches a video list by keywords, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_feedList (which likely lists without search) and get_challengeSearch (which targets challenges), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The inclusion of 'by keywords' differentiates it from non-search tools.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus the many sibling search/list tools, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The agent is left to infer applicability 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose billing (1 credit per call), supported platforms (Tiktok & Douyin), and output traits (HD quality, no watermark, fast). However, it omits rate limits, authentication needs, error behavior, response format, and limitations—partial transparency only.

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 description is appropriately short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The fragmented style (e.g., 'Fast. Support Tiktok & Douyin.') is slightly choppy, and 'Fast' is a vague marketing word, but every line otherwise adds useful capability or cost information.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the returned data contains beyond 'full info' and vague mentions of HD/no watermark and image lists. An agent cannot predict the response structure, error handling, or edge-case behavior. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, this is under-specified.

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 parameters are already fully documented (URL formats and HD bit-rate behavior). The description adds some context by mentioning HD quality and no watermark, but it does not materially enhance understanding of the input parameters beyond what the schema describes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get tiktok video full info'—immediately clear this tool retrieves complete TikTok video data. The added capabilities (HD, no watermark, image lists, stories, Tiktok & Douyin) further distinguish it from sibling tools focused on challenges, comments, music, users, etc.

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?

The usage is implied by the description and name: use this when you need TikTok (or Douyin) video information, images, or stories. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_userPublishVideo or get_musicVideo, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which is a cost detail, not behavior. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or anything about the response.

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 description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It does not provide enough information to be helpful. While it is short, it lacks essential context, so it cannot earn a higher score.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what happens. It fails to describe the return value, required inputs (the parameter is not marked required), or any preconditions. The description is inadequate for a functional tool.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with the parameter description 'id or https://vm.tiktok.com/xxxxxxx'. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given that the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'get playlist info' restates the title with minimal added meaning. It does not specify what specific playlist information is returned or how it differs from siblings like get_mixList or get_mixPosts. The verb 'get' is clear but the resource is vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as get_mixList or get_mixPosts exist, but the description offers no context or exclusions to help the agent choose correctly.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only adds billing cost and a non-empty precondition for identifiers; it omits whether the call is read-only, how pagination works, what kind of response is returned, and whether any auth or scopes are required.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but it is composed of choppy fragments: 'Group: Mix (Playlist). Billing per call: 1 Credits.' These add metadata but do not make the description more actionable or well-structured.

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 list-style tool with 4 optional-looking parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides no pagination context, no return expectations, no response shape, and no rationale for picking this over related playlist tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only mentions unique_id and user_id as the nonzero keys, but count and cursor are left completely unexplained, and there is no clear statement about whether any parameter is required.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving playlist(s) by user id, naming the specific resource and scope ('unique_id or user_id'). However, it is telegraphic and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_mixInfo or get_mixPosts.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note that 'unique_id or user_id is not empty' is a weak precondition, but it does not explain required vs optional inputs or distinguish this tool from the many other get_* siblings.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose pagination behavior, output contents, whether results are ordered, or any operational constraints; even the billing note is not behavioral.

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 description is very short, but not effective conciseness; it mostly repeats the tool name/title. It does not bother to include key context such as return, scope, pagination, or required inputs.

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?

Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, the description should provide more complete context about the playlist post list and execution behavior. It does not, leaving the description meaningfully incomplete for safe agent usage.

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 only 33%: mix_id is loosely described as 'playlist id,' and count/cursor have only examples. The description does not compensate, does not explain pagination, and does not clarify which parameter is essential for inducing the call.

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 'get play list post video list' is nearly a restatement of the title and provides little additional clarity. It identifies the Group as Mix (Playlist) but does not clearly define what the tool returns or how it is distinct from sibling tools like get_mixInfo or get_mixList.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, no exclusions, and no alternatives. The only contextual clue is 'Group: Mix (Playlist),' which is not enough to help an agent decide between this and related sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing per call and the generic 'get music info' phrase—no mention of read-only semantics, rate limits, authentication, response format, or errors. This is a severe gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The opening words are tautological, and the billing note, while factual, does not help the agent understand the tool. It fails to front-load any useful behavioral or selection information.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks usage expectations, return value descriptions, error behavior, and any distinction from the many sibling get_*Info tools. The low complexity does not excuse the missing context.

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?

The schema description fully covers the single 'url' parameter with an example and explanation ('id or https://vm.tiktok.com/xxxxxxx'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the tool description itself adds nothing beyond the schema but also doesn't need to.

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 'get music info', which directly restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. The 'Music Related API' label is a category, not a purpose, and does not distinguish this from similar sibling tools like get_mixInfo or get_userInfo.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling get_*Info tools exist, the complete absence of usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions offers no help for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only provides the API group and billing cost. It does not state that this is a read-only listing, how pagination works, what response shape to expect, or any permissions/limitations.

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 description is extremely short, but the primary sentence is a tautological restatement of the title and provides no useful content. The group and billing notes are minor metadata; the overall lack of substance is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a music post video list is, how count and cursor interact, when music_id is needed, or what the API returns, making correct invocation very difficult.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning. Schema descriptions cover count and cursor minimally, but music_id has only an example and no purpose explanation. The description does not connect music_id to the tool's function, leaving critical semantics unclear.

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 'get music post video list' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool title and adds no functional detail. It does not explain what the returned list contains or how it differs from similar sibling tools like get_musicInfo or get_challengePosts.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the required music_id context, pagination use cases, or any exclusions, so an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should explain behavioral details such as read-only behavior, return content, or required credentials, but it does not. The billing statement is a small operational detail, but the description gives no information about side effects, expected results, or failure modes.

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 text is short, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It wastes words repeating the same group/title phrasing and does not use its brevity to convey useful information.

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?

The definition is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations: a tool description must say what the endpoint returns or does, but the description only names the group and billing rate. An agent would have to guess the meaning of get_regionList from the tool name and sibling tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema fully covers this with an empty object, so there are no parameter descriptions needed. Because the schema already communicates the input surface, the description's silence on parameters is not a functional gap.

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 is a tautology: it says 'Feed Related API Group: Feed Related API' without stating what get_regionList actually does. The 'Billing per call' line adds cost info but no purpose, and the tool could easily be confused with the many other get_* sibling tools.

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 guidance about when to call this tool versus the sibling get_* tools. The only non-tautological note is billing per call, which is a pricing detail, not a usage condition or a comparison to alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions billing cost ('1 Credit') and gives no details about pagination, rate limits, required parameters, or return format. Since the description is extremely thin and omits critical behavior such as the optional cursor mechanism and the fact that keywords is effectively required despite the schema not marking it, transparency is poor.

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 description is short and to the point, covering the core action, group metadata, and billing in two sentences. No wordiness or redundancy exists. However, the 'Group: User Related API' phrase is structural clutter that could be omitted, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Despite having a schema with parameter descriptions, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral context. The description fails to mention what the response contains (just a list of users, but no fields), how pagination works (though cursor description in schema hint at it), or whether keywords is mandatory. This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and response shape.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description ('max 30' for count, 'OPTIONAL cursor hasMore is True, load next page', 'REQUIRED user nickname'). The description itself adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting that keywords drives the search. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter meaning.

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 'get user list by keywords' clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a list of users based on keywords. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_userInfo, which targets a single user's details, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'get' and resource 'user list' together with 'by keywords' provide specific action and method.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other search or user-related tools. The description only includes a generic group label and billing info, not when/when-not conditions or alternative suggestions. The only implicit hint is the keyword-based search purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to choose between this and similar search endpoints like get_feedSearch.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions billing per call (1 credit) but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if both user_id and unique_id are omitted. The lack of these details leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and constraints.

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 description is concise (one sentence) but mixes purpose with unrelated metadata ('Group: User Related API. Billing per call: 1 Credits'). The structure is acceptable but could be improved by separating core purpose from pricing/group info. It is not overly verbose, but the phrasing is a bit clunky.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the cursor for pagination, what the response format looks like, error scenarios, or prerequisites. For a list endpoint, this lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all four parameters with examples and constraints (count max 35, cursor described as 'hasMore', etc.). The description adds minimal value by indicating that either unique_id or user_id is required ('unique_id or user_id is not empty'), but it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'get user favorite videos' and identifies the resource as user's favorite videos. It also mentions that either unique_id or user_id can be used. However, the wording is slightly awkward ('for latest unique_id or user_id is not empty') and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_userPublishVideo, though the purpose is still clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer get_userPublishVideo or other user-related tools. The only contextual hint is the billing cost, which is not a usage guideline.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like pagination, authentication, or side effects. It does none of this; it only states cost. The pagination hint ('hasMore is True load next page') exists in the schema but not in the description, so the description fails to add transparency.

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 description is extremely brief but includes extraneous meta-info like 'Group: User Related API' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' that do not aid tool selection. It is concise but not efficiently structured; some lines are wasted.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining expected behavior and return values. It only states the tool's purpose and cost, leaving out any context about pagination, result shape, or limitations. This is inadequate for a tool with this level of structured metadata.

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 high (67%), with descriptions for 'time' and 'count' already explaining pagination and max count. The description itself doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description states 'get user following list' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from siblings like get_userPublishVideo or get_userFavoriteVideo by naming the resource. However, it adds no extra nuance beyond the tool name itself, so it doesn't reach the full 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the API group and cost. There is no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a precondition (unique_id or user_id must not be empty) and cost, but fails to mention auth requirements, read-only nature, rate limits, or what happens when both parameters are provided.

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 description is very short, but it includes extraneous information (Group, Billing) and is structured as a run-on sentence rather than clear, front-loaded prose. It could be more concise and organized.

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?

Given no output schema and sparse annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to use it effectively. It only states the basic purpose and a requirement, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It notes that at least one of unique_id or user_id is required but does not explain what these parameters represent or how they differ. The schema examples are not semantically meaningful.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves user info, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on 'user info' rather than user videos, following lists, etc. However, it does not specify what exact data is returned.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the API group and billing cost, offering no context on scenarios or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions billing per call and a grouping label. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention pagination via cursor, error behavior, or any other side effects. The description offers minimal behavioral insight beyond what is already obvious from the name.

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 description is a single awkward sentence that mixes the tool's purpose with metadata like 'Group: User Related API.' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits.' These metadata points are not useful for tool selection and clutter the description. It is not concise because it includes clutter without conveying clear, structured information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (likely a read operation), the description still fails to provide essential context: it does not clearly state what the tool returns, which parameters are required, or how the response is structured. The hint about unique_id or user_id is inadequate. The description is far from complete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 0% and the description adds no explanation for count, cursor, user_id, or unique_id. The only hint is that 'unique_id or user_id is not empty', which is a constraint rather than a definition. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents without semantic understanding of the parameters.

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 is a run-on phrase 'get user post videos for latest get user feed' that is ambiguous—it may mean getting a user's published videos or their feed. The title 'user post videos' clarifies somewhat, but the description fails to distinguish from siblings like get_userFavoriteVideo or get_userInfo. It lacks a clear verb+resource structure and reads like a partial thought.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only conditional phrase 'unique_id or user_id is not empty' seems like a parameter requirement, not usage guidance. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools.

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