tiktok_product_getGet details for a TikTok Shop product by product id. Accepts a product page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public TikTok Shop product detail page URL for the product to retrieve. | |
| region | No | Optional country or region code for the product catalog. When omitted, the default catalog region applies. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the input requirement (URL) but no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication, or what happens with invalid URLs. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited value beyond them.
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 short and front-loaded with the action. The two clauses are concise but slightly redundant/contradictory ('by product id' vs 'Accepts a product page URL'), which could be tightened. Still, it is efficient and no wasted words.
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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not hint at the response structure (e.g., price, availability) which could be helpful since there is no output schema. It also doesn't mention any special considerations for the region parameter or open-world behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, it's borderline acceptable but could be more complete.
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% for both parameters (url and region), so the schema already documents their meaning and constraints. The description mentions the URL but doesn't add depth on how the URL is used (e.g., whether product id is extracted) or the impact of the region parameter. Since schema carries the load, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb ('Get details') and resource ('TikTok Shop product'). However, the description says 'by product id' but then mentions accepting a product page URL, which is inconsistent with the actual input parameter (url). It does distinguish from list/search siblings by focusing on a single product's details, but the ambiguity slightly reduces clarity.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like tiktok_shop_products_list or tiktok_shop_products_search. It does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The only hint is that it accepts a URL, but no context on when this is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.