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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it reads the exact tenant-owned session even when a newer one exists, and forbids substituting the latest session or polling. It does not describe what the check returns on success vs. pending vs. failure, which is a mild gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and timing constraint, then the arguments, then the session-selection rule. Every sentence earns its place; slightly dense but no 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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main omission is the undocumented connection_context parameter, which an agent cannot infer at 0% schema coverage.

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 3-param description carries the burden. It documents channel='tiktok' and the provenance of connect_id, but says nothing about the optional connection_context (which has a strict mctx_v1_ pattern) and gives no format hints for connect_id itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check TikTok authorization') and ties it to the connect flow with a specific gating condition ('AFTER the user confirms they finished'). An agent can distinguish it from setup_begin_channel_connect and setup_get_status without reading either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (after user confirmation), explicit when-not ('never poll before user confirmation'), and names the source of the required connect_id ('from setup_begin_channel_connect'). The routing information is unambiguous.

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