tiktok_video_download_getDownload TikTok video or photo post media. Accepts a video URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Link to the video or photo post. | |
| region | No | Optional ISO 3166-1 country code used to route the request when needed. |
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 covered. The description adds that the tool handles both video and photo post media, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what the actual return value is (e.g., a binary file, a URL, or a base64 string), nor any rate limits or limitations. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some context but lacks behavioral detail.
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 only two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence is almost redundant but still concise. It is appropriately sized and avoids fluff, though the redundancy makes it slightly less efficient than it could be.
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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely insufficient. It fails to specify what the response will contain (e.g., file data, a download link) or any constraints like file size limits. Since there is no output schema to clarify, this gap matters. It covers the basic action but leaves the agent guessing about the return value, so a 3 is warranted.
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?
The schema already fully documents the 'url' parameter (as 'Link to the video or photo post') and 'region' (as an optional ISO code). The description's phrase 'Accepts a video URL' merely paraphrases the schema without adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate or extend the parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('TikTok video or photo post media'), clearly distinguishing it from information-fetching tools like tiktok_video_get. However, the phrase 'Accepts a video URL' is slightly ambiguous given it also claims to handle photo posts, and it doesn't explicitly mention the tool's differentiation from similar download tools, so it's clear but not perfectly precise.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tiktok_video_get (which presumably fetches metadata) or instagram_post_download_get. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
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.