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

Annotations already disclose openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description usefully adds the 100-video ceiling, the metadata payload, and cursor-based pagination, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the scope of the external fetch. Note a mild tension: the description depicts a pure read while readOnlyHint is false.

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?

Three tightly written sentences that are front-loaded with the core capability, followed by return payload and pagination. The field enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly by listing the metadata fields. Combined with schema-documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has nearly everything needed, missing only auth/rate-limit context.

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 url, limit and cursor are fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'Supports pagination via the cursor field' and 'up to 100 videos' essentially restate the schema's cursor and maximum rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get a list of recent videos from a TikTok channel') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like tiktok_search or tiktok_stats, which the agent must infer from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'recent videos from a TikTok channel' — there is no statement of when to prefer this over tiktok_search or tiktok_stats, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate for a simple fetch, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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