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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates the mutual-exclusion constraint and the token cost, which is helpful. However, it does not describe any additional behavior such as error conditions, rate limits, or the exact nature of returned metadata, leaving some ambiguity.

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 in the first sentence and a clear usage constraint in the second. The cost line is additional but short. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant 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 simple parameter set, the presence of an output schema, and the low complexity of the tool, the description is adequately complete. It covers the primary behavior and the crucial input constraint. It could be slightly richer by naming alternatives, but that is not necessary for basic invocation.

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 describes each parameter with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by stating that music_id and music_url are mutually exclusive alternatives, which is not captured in the schema itself.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Look up metadata for a TikTok music track.' This specifies exactly what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tiktok.download_music or tiktok.music_videos, both of which have different purposes.

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 explicit operational guidance: 'Provide either music_id or music_url, not both.' This clarifies the key usage constraint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for a metadata lookup.

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