search_library

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses key constraints (at least one filter required, limit max 3, sort options) and parameter semantics, but omits details about return format, rate limits, or auth needs. It does not contradict annotations since none exist, but it doesn't fully describe behavior either.

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-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an important requirement, and a terse args list. Every line provides necessary information, with no filler. The format is easily scannable, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides solid coverage: it defines param semantics, enforces a filter requirement, and notes limit bounds. It lacks return-value details but is otherwise quite complete for a search tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: q ('Text search across slide content'), niche, product_medium, region ('Account region code'), audience_region, sort ('"followers" or "recent"'), limit ('Default 3, max 3'), and offset ('Pagination offset'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 identifies the tool as 'Search real TikTok slideshow profiles for inspiration and competitive research,' naming the specific resource ('library') and intent. It distinguishes from generic search but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tool search_pinterest, so a slight differentiation gap remains.

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 provides some usage context ('for inspiration and competitive research') and a critical constraint ('At least one filter is required'), but it doesn't mention when to prefer this over alternatives like search_pinterest or when not to use it. This is implied rather than explicit.

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