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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: the one-row-per-creator output shape and the pay-per-profile billing model, which is genuine cost/rate context. It stops short of covering auth prerequisites, pagination, or what happens when a keyword yields 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The return-value detail comes first and the billing caveat is packed into a short trailing clause that a cost-aware agent needs.

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, so the description's field enumeration is doing necessary work, and cost is disclosed too. It is nearly complete for a search tool, with only auth requirements and result-cap behavior left unstated.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including the keyword examples and follower bounds. The description only loosely echoes this via 'by keyword' and 'any contact email,' adding little beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (TikTok creators) and enumerates exactly what comes back per row: handle, bio, follower/like counts, and contact channels. This is clearly distinguishable from the YouTube and transcript siblings.

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 cost context for a run (~$1 per 1,000 profiles), which implicitly tells the agent to keep runs small, but it never states when to choose this tool over find_youtube_channel_emails or get_video_transcripts, nor any prerequisite like an Apify account/token. Usage is implied only.

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