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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: per-call pricing (¥0.1), billing only on success, and automatic refund on failure or empty result — commercially important context the annotations do not carry. It does not mention rate limits or auth details beyond what the schema states.

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?

Four compact sentences covering purpose, return fields, usage contexts and billing, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and adding pricing/refund behavior. The only real gap is the identifier requirement (sec_uid vs unique_id) given that required is empty, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 sec_uid and unique_id are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing about the identifier choice — notably, required is empty and it never says at least one of sec_uid/unique_id must be supplied — so it neither compensates nor misleads.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("获取TikTok用户信息") and enumerates the returned fields (nickname, followers, likes, bio, verification), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It implicitly separates itself from tiktok_user_posts by framing the tool as account profile retrieval, but it never names a sibling or states that boundary explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete usage contexts — influencer screening, account profiling, follower-tier grouping — which tells an agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of exclusions or pointing to alternatives (e.g. use tiktok_user_posts for their content), so the when-not guidance is absent.

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