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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. On top of that, the description discloses the credit cost (1 credit) and the shape of the return payload (views, likes, comments, shares, author, caption, hashtags), which are real behavioral facts not present in structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then result size and returned fields, then cost. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to call it correctly: page size limits, payload contents, and cost. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained sort_type enum, which is the one thing a caller could get wrong.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the count ceiling ('up to 50 with count') and the default of 20, but adds nothing about offset pagination or what sort_type values 0/1/2 actually mean — the least self-explanatory parameter goes unexplained.

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 ('Search TikTok videos by keyword'), which clearly separates it from tiktok_videos (listing a known user's videos) and tiktok_comments. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to prefer in an alternative case, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 keyword-based framing implies the use case (find videos on a topic rather than fetch a known account's content), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as tiktok_videos or x_search. The agent must infer the routing.

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