tiktok_creative_center_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and excels: it reveals the TikTok One login gating for the true result-set, the anonymous 4-video page-1 limit regardless of sort/period, uneven country coverage, and that empty videos arrays are genuine no-data responses rather than errors. This is exemplary beyond what annotations could provide.

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 content is dense and each of the two behavioral sentences earns its place with high-value caveats. However, the opening is redundant: 'Retrieve TikTok Creative Center trending videos' followed immediately by 'Returns TikTok Creative Center's ranked trending videos' repeats the same idea, preventing a top score.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining key response characteristics: total_count/page_count fields, the fixed 4-video anonymous page, and the possibility of an empty videos array for unsupported countries. It does not describe the shape of individual video entries, which is the only notable remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description references country, period, and sort order in the context of the anonymous-access limitation and points to total_count/page_count in the response, but it adds no parameter-level format, valid-value, or detailed behavioral guidance beyond the schema's brief definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names a precise resource ('TikTok Creative Center trending videos'), then states exactly what is returned: ranked trending videos for a country, period, and sort order. It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings like tiktok_trending, tiktok_search, or tiktok_top_ads_list by anchoring on the Creative Center dataset.

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 clear decision-relevant context: anonymous requests only get page 1 (4 videos), and only US, JP, ID, VN, and TH reliably return populated results. This effectively tells the agent when the tool will be useful. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when-not-to-use scenarios relative to siblings.

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