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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: 40-credit cost, charged only on success, no charge on failure, and the explicit 'Creates nothing' guarantee that aligns with destructiveHint=false. This explains the pricing/side-effect profile (which is why readOnlyHint is false) far beyond what the annotation block conveys.

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?

Five dense sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before cost and routing details. It is packed with distinct ideas (cost, workflow, fallback) which makes it slightly heavy, but nothing is redundant.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (questions plus answers plus evidence), the cost model, the downstream handoff, and the failure behavior. An agent can call this correctly and know exactly what to do with the result.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents video_url as a TikTok URL. The description implies the input is a TikTok but adds no format, validation, or constraint detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

Names a specific verb+resource+method: an AI watching a TikTok (frames + captions) to suggest counting questions with answers and evidence. It also explicitly delimits scope with 'high confidence only' and 'Creates nothing', which separates it cleanly from create_watch_quiz in the sibling list.

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?

Gives explicit routing: show every question WITH its evidence to the user, pass only confirmed ones to create_watch_quiz or boost_post's watch_quiz. It also names the fallback path on failure ('ask the user for questions instead'), so both the happy path and the failure path are specified.

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