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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it delegates, returns authorize_url/connect_id/expires, and warns against polling. However, it omits side effects, error conditions, authentication prerequisites, and the full flow continuation, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: each clause adds value—purpose, constraint, returns, delegation, and a warning. Information is front-loaded and efficiently delivered.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter value, return fields, and a behavioral warning. It could mention next steps (e.g., continue with tiktok_continue_auth_onboarding), but that's not critical for basic 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?

The schema provides only a property name with zero description coverage. The description compensates by stating the only allowed value ('must be 'tiktok''), giving essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 the tool is an alias for TikTok connect, names the exact delegate (tiktok_begin_auth_onboarding), and specifies the required channel value. This clearly differentiates it from other setup tools and the full onboarding flow.

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 a behavioral instruction ('Do NOT poll automatically') but does not explicitly compare this alias with alternatives like tiktok_begin_auth_onboarding or setup_check_channel_connect. The delegation note implies when to use it, but the 'when vs when-not' guidance is only implicit.

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