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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context about the response shape ('Returns a list') and pagination ('use cursor when paginated'), which is useful beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose and exclusion are front-loaded, and the pagination note is a single clause. Every word contributes value.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (list return, pagination). It doesn't mention rate limits or regional nuances, but those are already in the schema descriptions for region. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States the exact action ('Search TikTok videos') and resource, and explicitly differentiates from sibling 'tiktok_search_hashtag_list' by clarifying it uses free-text keyword, not hashtag. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 an explicit when-not: 'not hashtag — use tiktok.search.hashtag.list for that', naming the alternative. Also mentions cursor for pagination, guiding usage on large result sets. Does not reference other search siblings like tiktok_search_top_list, but the primary purpose is clear enough.

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