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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait: results reflect TikTok's own account search ordering and the bounds/verified/sort filters apply to the returned page, which matters for pagination expectations. It doesn't restate what the annotations already cover.

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 plus an example, front-loaded with the verb and scope. The clause 'as TikTok's account search returns them now' is slightly awkward and does double duty as behavioral context, but nothing is padded or 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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs scope, filtering behavior, and routing. It delivers all three; only minor gaps remain (per-page filtering vs. global filtering is hinted but not spelled out, and cursor paging relies solely on the schema).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns the extra point by clarifying that the keyword matches names, handles, or niches (schema only says 'Search phrase') and by showing a populated example with min_followers and sort. It does not explain cursor or detail semantics, but those are already documented in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Searches TikTok accounts by keyword') and narrows the keyword scope to name, handle, or niche. It explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling ('Not a sales ranking (use creator_top_selling)'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

It names one alternative and the condition that selects it ('use creator_top_selling' for sales ranking), plus a concrete example invocation. It stops short of covering the wider sibling set (e.g., creator, creator_commerce), so it isn't fully exhaustive, but the use/avoid guidance is clear.

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