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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does it well. It reveals the possibility of a 6h-stale degraded snapshot, specifies the degraded and staleAgeMs signals, clarifies zero-credit failures and empty results, states the 2-credit cost, and explains the cache behavior. This is rich, practical context that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and quickly covers the critical operational facts. There is slight redundancy between 'Failures are 0 credits' and 'Empty results and failures are never charged,' but the overall text remains compact and scannable.

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?

The description covers the most important contextual aspects: what the tool returns, stale-data behavior, pricing, and caching. Since there is no output schema, the description could have explained the response shape a bit more, but the schema already documents pagination via cursor and limit, and the core return value is clear from the name and first sentence.

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 parameters are already thoroughly documented in the input schema. The description adds no new semantics for url, limit, or cursor beyond what the schema provides, and its cache explanation largely restates the schema's cache parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the latest videos from a TikTok profile, which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like tiktok_channel_details or tiktok_video_details, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 gives useful guidance on when to use cache=true for a free hit and warns about stale snapshot behavior, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as tiktok_channel_details or tiktok_video_details. The use case is implied by 'Latest videos from a TikTok profile' rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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