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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: autocomplete survives rate limiting while full search does not, results include TikTok's own ranking, and user_only switches the response to account suggestions with handles/avatars. It omits auth requirements and the effect of count on behavior, keeping it below 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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the flag behavior and the operational rationale. Every clause adds information and nothing is padded.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, one parameter's semantics, and a key operational trait. It leaves response shape (ordering, count effects, pagination) and any auth prerequisites unspecified, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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, and the description earns an extra point by enriching user_only beyond the schema's terse 'Return account suggestions instead of queries' — it specifies that those suggestions come with handles and avatars. count and keyword get no additional elaboration.

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 and resource ('Get TikTok's autocomplete for a keyword') and clarifies the payload ('the exact phrases people type, including the site's own ranking'). The mention of 'full search' implicitly distinguishes it from the many search_* siblings without ambiguity.

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 clear usage context: it is 'the durable keyword-discovery path' that works 'even when full search is rate limited', and explains when to flip user_only. It stops short of naming specific sibling alternatives to prefer for other tasks, so it is strong but not fully explicit routing.

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