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, yet it discloses nothing about return format, rate limits, pagination, or auth beyond what the schema already states in the _token field. A read-only search's behavior is entirely undocumented.

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 a single five-character label. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concise — every sentence that would earn its place is absent.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (videos, users, posts) and how results are scoped. Nothing beyond the name is given, so an agent cannot predict the response shape from the definition.

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 both parameters (keyword and _token with its auth fallback note) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The phrase 'TikTok关键词搜索' names a verb (搜索/search) and resource (TikTok keyword), so the agent knows it queries TikTok by keyword. However it is a bare label with no scope detail and does not differentiate itself from the sibling tiktok_video tool, leaving the agent to guess what object type is returned.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as tiktok_video, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name.

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