tiktok_top_ads_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a chart and percentile, but does not mention any behavioral aspects such as whether it is read-only, data freshness, rate limits, or prerequisites (e.g., needing a material_id from another tool). The description is purely functional and adds no safety or constraint context beyond the obvious retrieval nature.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and output, and the second lists the metric values with readable names. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description lacks detail on the return structure. Since there is no output schema, it only says 'returns the detail-page interactive time analysis chart and percentile' without specifying the shape (e.g., JSON object, array), units, or example. It also does not mention that only material_id is required or that period_type is optional, though the schema indicates this. For a tool with no output schema, this is a significant 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value. It does provide friendly mappings for the metric enum (e.g., retain_ctr = CTR, click_cnt = Clicks), which is helpful, but it does not explain the period_type or material_id beyond what the schema already states. The description offers a slight enhancement over the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 states a specific action: 'Retrieve TikTok Top Ads interactive time analysis' and names the returned artifacts (chart and percentile). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like tiktok_top_ads_detail by focusing on the 'interactive time analysis' aspect, and lists the specific metrics covered, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many tiktok_top_ads_* siblings. The description implies usage via its purpose but does not state conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. For a tool with a large family of related tools, this omission leaves the agent to infer selection.

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