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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (aweme_list, cursor, has_more unchanged) and the key behavioral trait that results are native and unprocessed ('no aggregation or processing'). It omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, and whether ordering is fixed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by return fields and pagination guidance. Every sentence contributes; minimal waste.

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-param paginated read tool with no output schema, the description names the return fields and explains the cursor loop, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only minor gaps (ordering, auth) remain.

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 all three parameters (count, cursor, music_id) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the pagination semantics of cursor but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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'), a precise resource ('TikTok videos using a sound'), and a scope ('one native page'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_sounds (finding a sound) and video_detail. An agent can identify the tool's job 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?

The description explains the pagination workflow (pass the returned cursor for the next page) and the schema points to search_sounds/video_detail for the music_id, giving usable context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like similar_videos or search_videos.

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