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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context that the annotations do not: one tool serves two modes (leaderboard search vs. detail lookup) and livestreamId is sourced from the livestream_id field of the rank endpoint. It omits rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, and what happens if livestreamId is absent.

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 two sentences are tight and well front-loaded, but the trigger-keyword sentence is a bloated list that literally repeats itself — 'TikTok livestream ranking, TikTok live ranking, TikTok top livestreams, TikTok live shopping ranking, TikTok livestream detail' appears twice verbatim. That duplicated bulk dilutes the signal an agent needs.

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?

With 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and a nested sortField object, the description does well to summarize the metrics returned. What it lacks is exactly what a complex multi-mode tool needs: which parameter combination selects rank mode versus detail mode, and how it relates to the near-identical kd_livestream_rank/kd_livestream_detail siblings.

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 all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description correctly stays at baseline by adding only light framing (region/currency/language/date range narrow the leaderboard; livestreamId selects detail mode). The one real addition is the note that livestreamId comes from the rank endpoint's livestream_id, which helps chaining, but nothing is said about how the dual-mode switch works or how the many ID filters interact.

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 names specific verbs and resources — search TikTok e-commerce livestream leaderboards via Kalodata and query detail for a specific livestream by livestreamId — and enumerates the fields returned (revenue, viewers, duration, GPM, products sold). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from same-family siblings such as nexscope_data_kd_livestream_rank, nexscope_data_kd_livestream_detail, or nexscope_chuhaijiang_tiktok_live_search, which appear to cover nearly identical ground.

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?

Trigger conditions are stated exhaustively, including the useful instruction to fire even when the user never says 'kalodata', which is real routing guidance. However, there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many competing TikTok livestream tools, so an agent choosing between this and nexscope_data_kd_livestream_detail has no tiebreaker.

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