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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key traits: it is async, submits one task per active connection, and returns task_id values rather than the insights themselves. It does not mention potential side effects such as API quota/rate-limit cost or cache invalidation, which is a minor gap for an async refresh operation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose/mechanism, the alternative path, the parameter spec, and a concrete example call. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary and could front-load the 'manual refresh compatibility path' note, but nothing is filler.

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 one-parameter async tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return semantics (task_ids, not data), the alternative path, the parameter spec, and an example. The only missing piece is how to consume the returned task_ids (e.g., via tasks_get_status), which is left implicit.

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%, so the description fully compensates by documenting the only parameter: 'days (int 1..90, default 30 — window length, NOT a date pair).' It adds the range, default, and critically disambiguates from the sibling insights_get_date_range tool. This is genuine value added beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Async refresh of cached insights from the TikTok Marketing API,' and clarifies the mechanism (submits pull_tiktok_insights tasks, returns legacy task_id values). It explicitly contrasts itself with insights_query_consistent, so an agent can distinguish it from the query-family siblings without opening their schemas.

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 when-not-to-use guidance: 'Agent Method clients should follow the opaque task_ref returned by insights_query_consistent' and names the alternative tool. It labels itself as the 'manual refresh compatibility path.' It stops short of stating when a legacy/manual client would prefer this path over consistent, which keeps it from a 5.

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