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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: image and caption URLs expire, no OCR or transcription is performed, and native subtitleInfos/captionInfos are only present 'when available'. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then photo-post specifics, then expiration/no-OCR caveats, then id sourcing and intent. Dense but effective; the long field enumeration is justified by the absence of an output schema.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete about return values (author, counts, duration, hashtags, sound, media URLs, captions, photo slide order) and caveats. Missing only operational details such as permissions, pagination, and failure behavior.

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 the aweme_id semantics are already documented in the schema (baseline 3). The description adds meaning beyond it by stating the id originates from specific sibling tools and is a numeric post id, which helps the agent source the value correctly.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the record for a single video or photo/slideshow post', then enumerates exactly what the record contains. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list/search tools (search_videos, related_videos) because it is the single-item detail resolver and names the tools whose ids it consumes.

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 tells the agent where the id comes from (search_photos, search_videos, related_videos, hashtag_videos) and gives a use intent ('vet a video or benchmark one that is performing'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or a direct comparison to nearest siblings like similar_videos or video_comments.

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