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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say read-only, open-world, non-destructive): single-page semantics, relevance ordering, duplicate preservation, temporary media links, and a per-page credit cost that applies even to empty results. Cost-per-call and transient-output disclosure are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact (page scope, pagination, dedupe, link expiry, cost), with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler.

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?

Return format is covered by the output schema, and the description fills in the non-obvious gaps: cost, paging, duplicate retention, link lifetime. The remaining hole is the cursor parameter's naming/expiry behavior and query constraints, which no structured field or sentence resolves.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains the cursor's role in continuing a search but calls it 'next_cursor' while the schema parameter is 'cursor', and says nothing about query limits (1-100 chars, control characters rejected). Partial compensation only.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Fetch one relevance-ordered page of TikTok videos.' That distinguishes it in spirit from get_tiktok_videos / list_tiktok_hashtag_videos, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary between search-based and ID/list-based retrieval.

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 pagination rule ('Continue with next_cursor and the same query') is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over search_tiktok_users, search_youtube, list_tiktok_hashtag_videos, or get_tiktok_videos — usage is implied rather than scoped.

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