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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the result is conditional on the profile being public, and the call costs 1 credit. It omits what happens on a private profile (error vs. empty result) and does not address pagination behavior even though a cursor parameter exists.

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?

A single fragment with zero filler; the availability caveat and the credit cost are both front-loaded and easy to scan. Its terseness borders on under-specification rather than excess, so it is efficient but slightly too sparse.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the bar is low. Still, for a tool gated on public visibility, the description should say what the agent gets back when the profile is private or liked videos are hidden, and should confirm pagination via cursor.

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 both parameters (handle, cursor) are documented in the schema, so the description carries little extra burden. It adds no meaning beyond the schema — nothing about handle formats, cursor lifetime, or page-size behavior — which makes the baseline 3 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?

"Videos a profile has liked" names a specific resource (liked-video list) scoped to a profile, which distinguishes it reasonably well from tiktok_profile_videos or tiktok_collection_videos. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word "liked."

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 parenthetical "(when public)" gives a real precondition for use, which is more than nothing. However, it never states when to choose this over tiktok_profile_videos, tiktok_collection_videos, or other TikTok listing tools, and gives no fallback behavior when the profile is private.

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