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

With no annotations or output schema, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the search scope but not what the response contains, whether results are mixed, or if pagination/sorting applies. This is adequate for a simple search tool but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('adult videos', 'hashtags', 'creators', 'by keyword') earns its place by defining scope.

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 one-parameter search tool, this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what to send and roughly what will be searched. But without an output schema or annotations, the absence of any statement about the returned shape or result grouping leaves a notable gap.

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 has 100% coverage for the single required q parameter, so the description does not need to compensate heavily. It adds that q is a keyword applied to videos, hashtags, and creators, but gives no further formatting or syntax 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource (NudiTok) and target content types: adult videos, hashtags, and creators, by keyword. It makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_creators or get_video.

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 phrase 'by keyword' implies the tool should be used for keyword-driven discovery, which distinguishes it from feed, trending, get-by-id, and list-all siblings. However, it never states when-not-to-use it or names an alternative, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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