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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool performs a keyword search, but says nothing about result format, ordering, pagination, limits, no-result behavior, authentication, or whether results are grouped by content type. This is a meaningful gap for a search tool with no output schema.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it names the target content types compactly.

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 single-parameter tool, the description is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema and no annotations to compensate for missing return-value or result-behavior details. The description explains what is searched but not what the caller receives, which is a clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents q as 'Search query'. The tool description adds that the query is a keyword matched against videos, hashtags, and creators, which is mild enrichment but does not provide additional syntax or formatting details. The high schema coverage supports the baseline score of 3.

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'), names the platform ('NudiTok'), and enumerates the content types covered ('videos, hashtags, and creators') with a clear keyword mechanism. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like get_feed, list_creators, and get_video, which imply direct retrieval or listing rather than keyword search.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for keyword search across content types, while siblings like get_video or list_tags handle direct retrieval or listing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so the agent must rely on naming conventions and inference.

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