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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the data is cached, that linked_bcs is derived from linked_advertiser_ids, that the page is bounded, and that complete only means pagination is finished, not upstream sync or permission to create. It also states rejected/old cursor behavior, which is valuable runtime behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organizes pagination, parameter semantics, and creation context into distinct, purposeful sentences. There is no filler; the REQUIRED and EXAMPLE lines are minimal and practical.

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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, this description is unusually complete. It covers all parameters, response navigation, row-level derivation, caveats about permission, and a concrete example. The only minor omission is a full enumeration of response fields, but the pagination and linked_bcs details cover the agent's core needs.

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 0%, but the description compensates for all four parameters: cursor is from the previous response and must restart when stale, limit has default 20/max 50, search is case-insensitive id/name lookup, and advertiser_id comes from assets_list_ad_accounts and filters to exact cached advertiser links. This goes well beyond the bare type/default fields in the input schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource: 'List cached TikTok app assets (App Promotion advertised apps) for the authenticated tenant.' The parenthetical and 'cached' scope distinguish this from the other assets_list_* sibling tools. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a clear sense of what the tool returns.

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 gives explicit pagination instructions ('Keep the same tool, filters and limit while following next_cursor serially until complete=true'), the creation-time condition for using advertiser_id from assets_list_ad_accounts, and a negative rule ('Shared BC ownership alone is not an advertiser link'). It also warns that the prepare step still verifies authorization, so an agent knows not to assume this list grants creation.

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