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 it delivers substantive context: the 1-credit cost, the guarantee that empty results and failures are never charged, and the 24h cache semantics with default-fresh behavior. These are genuine operational traits beyond what the schema expresses. It stops short of describing edge-case response behavior, but the core cost and failure profile is transparent.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core question and response fields lead, followed by cost, failure-charging policy, and caching details. Every clause earns its place, and dense information like pricing and cache behavior is packed efficiently without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key ground: response field names and formats, credit cost, empty/failure charging, and cache behavior. The main gap is the missing differentiation from tiktok_live_info, which prevents the agent from fully understanding when this endpoint is the right one.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including URL format constraints and the cache default false behavior. The description's mention of cache=true adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema's boolean documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific purpose — checking whether a TikTok creator is live — and enumerates the exact response fields (isLive/status, creator.id/secUid, room, streamQualities with flv/hls/cmaf/dash). This is specific enough to separate it from most of the sibling list, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling tiktok_live_info, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and the sibling list includes tiktok_live_info, which plausibly overlaps. The only usage-adjacent information is the cache=true strategy, which concerns parameter selection rather than tool selection. An agent comparing live-status tools gets no decision rule.

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