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 important behavioral details: the 2-credit cost, that empty results and failures are not charged, and the free 24h cache behavior. It also mentions result types when TikTok includes them. This goes well beyond the schema, though it does not fully describe all response or pagination behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost and cache details. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant repetition of schema content.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does enough by stating that responses include videos and photo carousels with contentType and images[]. Combined with schema descriptions for cursor and limit, an agent has most needed invocation context. It stops short of full completeness because it does not mention pagination behavior or nextCursor in the description, though the schema covers it.

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?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about cache behavior and credits but does not add new meaning to q, limit, or cursor beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: 'TikTok Top/General search' for videos and photo carousels. It explains the intended scope and mentions output elements like contentType and images[]. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools such as tiktok_search_by_hashtag or tiktok_search_users, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mechanics such as credit cost, cache behavior, and empty-result charging, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many TikTok sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the name 'Top/General search' alone.

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