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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is cached, that pages are compact and bounded, and that 'complete' refers only to pagination, not upstream sync or creation permission. It also explains cursor invalidation behavior. It does not mention auth details (implied by 'authenticated tenant') or error cases, but the disclosed behaviors are substantive and non-obvious.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, then pagination semantics, a caveat about 'complete', a required/optional note, and an example. Every sentence adds value; no filler. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then gives operational details, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational aspects: source of data, pagination, cursor handling, and example call. It does not specify the exact response fields or error conditions, which could be inferred from the 'compact bounded page' description, but a bit more detail on the response shape would make it fully complete. Still, it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does: 'cursor from the previous response', 'limit (default 20, maximum 50)', and 'search (case-insensitive native id/name lookup)'. It also explains how cursor and limit interact with pagination, adding meaning far beyond the raw 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 description clearly states the tool lists cached TikTok Shops attached to the authenticated tenant's Business Centers, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling asset-list tools by naming the exact asset type (SHOP) and even cites the underlying API endpoint. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear for listing shops, and the description provides detailed pagination guidance (follow next_cursor serially, restart on rejected cursor). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use assets_list_tt_accounts for TikTok accounts'), though the distinct asset type makes the choice obvious. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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