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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention pagination ('Pass cursor from a previous response to fetch the next page') and token cost, which adds value. But it doesn't discuss rate limits, authentication, or the meaning of the follower_count filter beyond the schema. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a cost line. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential operational details (query requirement and pagination). Every word 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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the description effectively communicates the search intent and pagination. However, the follower_count parameter is ambiguous ('0-4' is unclear as to whether it's a range, code, or filter tier), which slightly detracts from completeness. Overall, it's solid for a simple search tool with a well-described schema.

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 coverage is 100% for all four parameters, with each having a description in the input schema. The description itself only repeats query and cursor without adding new details. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this scores a 3.

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 action and resource: 'Search TikTok users by keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_videos and search_photos, which target different content types. The scope (by keyword) is immediately clear.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires a query and explains pagination via cursor. This gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it's a step below the highest tier.

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