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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the pagination model (native cursor page, no automatic pagination), the visibility authority (TikTok), and explicitly rules out private-data access and per-video enrichment. It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with scope and the authored-posts exclusion, then return shape, then negative constraints. Every sentence adds information and none 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (itemList, cursor, hasMore) and the pagination/visibility model. Only auth requirements and error behavior are left unaddressed.

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 cursor, count and sec_uid are already fully documented. The description only alludes to the cursor/hasMore round-trip, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 (Get) and resource (a creator's publicly available reposted videos), and explicitly excludes authored posts, which cleanly separates it from the sibling creator_posts tool. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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 'not their authored posts' clause implicitly routes the agent to creator_posts for authored content, and 'one native page' sets the pagination expectation. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when-not-to-use conditions explicitly.

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