TikTok Shop

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the credit price of every resource, that failures are free, that results report what was charged and what remains, that list resources return a cursor to be replayed verbatim, and that cached copies are free. That is unusually rich cost and pagination transparency for a read tool.

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?

Dispatch mechanics come first, then a compact bulleted resource table with per-resource cost and paging notes. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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 9-parameter resource dispatcher with nested `params` and no output schema, the definition covers cost, paging, caching, and argument placement well enough to invoke correctly. It stops short of describing the shape of returned product/review objects, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, and each schema description already states which resources consume the parameter ("Used by: product, product.reviews"), so the description's resource list largely restates structured data. It does add the calling convention (resource-specific params as top-level arguments, extras in `params`), which is genuinely useful, but not enough to exceed the baseline-plus.

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?

Opens with a specific resource domain ("TikTok Shop products, shop listings and product reviews") and enumerates four concrete resources with their return subject, so an agent knows exactly what data it can obtain. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `tiktok` tool, which presumably covers non-shop TikTok data, leaving that boundary to inference.

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?

Gives clear operating instructions: pick a `resource`, pass its parameters top-level, extras in `params`, pass `cursor` back unchanged for the next page, and use `max_age_days` for a free cached copy. What is missing is when to choose this over the sibling `tiktok` or `search` tools when the same content could plausibly be reached from either.

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