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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 1-credit cost, that empty results and failures are never charged, and the 24-hour cache behavior with a default of always-fresh requests. These are actionable behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the cost/cache details are packed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only details tool, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates output fields, cost, failure charging, and cache options. It does not explicitly describe the return structure or error body, but no output schema exists and the field list largely compensates.

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 the schema already documents both url and cache. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the cache behavior, matching the baseline for high schema 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get everything about one TikTok video from its URL,' then enumerates concrete returned data (caption, view/like/comment/share/save counts, creator, sound, hashtags, thumbnail). This is enough to tell it apart from sibling TikTok tools like tiktok_channel_details or tiktok_trending_feed.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: pass a TikTok video URL, and optionally set cache=true for a 24-hour cache hit at zero cost while defaulting to a fresh fetch. It does not explicitly name alternatives or define when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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