TikTok Profile API

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, and the description echoes that while adding useful behavioral details: cost differences between live reads and cache hits, the single-object return shape, and the fact that field names use TikTok's own terminology. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information: scope, return shape, field naming, cost, and data limitations. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and helpful annotations, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what data comes back, what public scope means, how caching affects cost, and what is deliberately excluded. No critical invocation information is missing.

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 already covers both parameters fully: the url format/example and the cache default/behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the cost implication of a live read, which is already described in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool returns: follower, video, and heart counts for a public TikTok account, and it notes that the result is one object. It is unambiguous about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like tiktok_stats or instagram_profile, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear boundary conditions: public data only, no bios, no contact details, and no login-walled data. This tells an agent when not to use the tool, and the cache/cost note adds practical usage context, but it does not name alternative tools or explicit when-to-use-versus-other choices.

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