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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no rate limits, no pagination behavior, no auth requirement, no note on what the returned video list looks like. It cannot be said to contradict anything, but it adds no behavioral context at all.

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?

It is a single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words, which is good, but at eight characters it is more under-specified than concise. There is nothing to trim and also nothing to work with.

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 3-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left guessing about pagination semantics, result ordering, and the X-FW-Token vs _token auth trade-off that the schema hints at. The description does not fill any of those gaps.

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% (page, keyword, _token are each documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify keyword syntax, escaping, or the page-zero default.

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 phrase '抖音关键词搜索视频' names a specific verb (搜索/search), resource (视频/videos), platform (抖音/Douyin) and the input (关键词/keyword), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It implicitly separates itself from douyin_video and douyin_author by platform and action, but it never names an alternative or draws the boundary explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over tiktok_search, xhs_note_search, or douyin_video, nor any mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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