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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return contents (author, counts, media URLs, raw upstream fields like authorStats, music, poi, subtitleInfos) and pagination via searchId – useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature beyond inference. Solid but not comprehensive for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scoping, then return contents, then pagination. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, when to use, return fields, and pagination. It stops short of covering edge cases (e.g., empty results, rate limits, auth), but for a search tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 every parameter. The description only adds the searchId pagination mechanism ('pass back the searchId from the first page'), which the schema already implies via 'search_id' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Precise verb (Search) + resource (TikTok's ordinary video results/feed) with an explicit scoping contrast: 'the real feed, not topics'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_topics, browse_topics, and explore_videos.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'use it to see what content is actually ranking' and contrasts with topics. It does not name alternative siblings (e.g., search_all, explore_videos, search_sounds) or say when NOT to use it, but the usage context and pagination guidance are strong.

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