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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by naming the required OAuth scope and the reconnect URL needed to grant it. It also discloses the returned metric set, but says nothing about behavior when multiple accounts are connected (it presumes a single 'connected' account) or about caching/freshness of the counts.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, then the permission requirement, then sibling disambiguation. Every sentence carries distinct information (metrics, auth, alternative) with no repetition of the tool name or 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?

For a parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field list, the auth requirement, and sibling routing, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only residual gap is account-selection behavior when more than one TikTok account is connected, including list_connected_accounts as a discovery path would have closed 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit. The schema is empty and correctly so, and the description does not invent input arguments.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource (the connected TikTok account's stats) and enumerates exactly which metrics are returned: followers, following, total likes, public-video count. It also pre-emptively separates itself from get_post_stats, which is the sibling an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly routes individual video view queries to get_post_stats instead, and gives a concrete prerequisite (user.info.stats permission) plus the remediation step and URL if the permission is missing. That is both when-to-use and what-to-do-when-blocked guidance.

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