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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety and result variability. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the credit cost structure (1 base, +2 per hosted asset up to 24/49) and the nuance that failed assets are not surcharged. This gives the agent a clear understanding of cost implications and hostMedia behavior.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the cost detail is presented in a separate, clearly structured sentence. 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 tool is a straightforward listing operation. With no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, key input, and cost nuance. Pagination is handled by the cursor parameter described in the schema. The only missing context might be rate limits or response size, but these are typically outside the description's scope. Overall, sufficient for correct usage.

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 seven parameters are already documented. The description adds only the credit cost clarification for hostMedia, which is helpful but not essential for parameter understanding. It does not compensate for any missing parameter info, but none is missing.

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 clearly states 'List videos from a TikTok profile by handle' – a specific verb (List), resource (videos from a TikTok profile), and key input (handle). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tiktok_collection_videos_list or tiktok_music_videos_list without ambiguity.

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 implies usage for profile videos via the handle but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., collection, music, or feed listings). It provides credit/cost context that influences when to use, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Given the tool's self-explanatory name and purpose, this is adequate but not fully explicit.

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