TikTok Unauthorized API Scraper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a privacy dependency but doesn't cover other critical aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling for privacy restrictions, or response format. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely involves user data access.

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 a single, reasonably concise sentence that communicates the core purpose upfront. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the main action from the privacy condition, and it contains a minor grammatical error ('it' instead of 'if').

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 the complexity of searching user-liked posts (which involves privacy considerations and user data), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate. It should explain more about what the tool returns, how privacy restrictions manifest, and any other constraints beyond the single mentioned condition.

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 100% with one optional parameter 'X-Fields' documented as 'An optional fields mask'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search for post user previously liked' specifies the action (search) and resource (liked posts). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on liked posts rather than general posts or user info. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, missing some differentiation nuance.

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 implied usage context: 'only if the target user allowed this feature in privacy settings' indicates a prerequisite condition. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_users_posts_by_sec_user_id' or other user/post search tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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