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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a Builder task is submitted and that one tool serves two modes, which is mildly useful, but it does not explain async task behavior, how results are retrieved, or what 'destructive' means here. No contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence is keyword-stuffed with near-identical synonyms ('TikTok 个人资料信息、Tiktok 个人资料信息' differ only in capitalization), which is pure padding. The useful content (submit a profile Builder task, two modes) is confined to the second sentence, so signal is diluted.

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 six-parameter scraping submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and mode selection adequately. It omits the async task lifecycle and how to fetch results (e.g., via scraper_task_result/status siblings), which an agent would need to complete the workflow.

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 all six parameters, including the spider_id enum. The description only restates the two spider_id values, adding no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 second sentence states a specific verb and resource: submitting a TikTok profile-info collection Builder task, with two named modes (by-url, by-listurl). This is enough to distinguish it from tiktok_posts and tiktok_comment by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 first sentence gives trigger conditions (profile-info terms combined with collect/scrape/fetch verbs), which is a form of when-to-use guidance. However, it offers no when-not-to-use conditions and never names an alternative sibling such as tiktok_posts, leaving the routing decision implied rather than explicit.

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