List profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces a read-only list operation. It adds concrete detail about the response (connected social accounts, and a `capabilities` array with TikTok fields), which helps an agent predict output without over-explaining.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation. The second sentence bundles a useful but somewhat long list of TikTok capability fields; still no 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 zero-parameter read-only list call, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: what is returned, and the safety profile. It doesn't mention pagination or the exact shape of the response object, but 'all' and the field list largely compensate.

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 tool has no parametersasi input schema fully covers this. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints, so a baseline score of 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 names a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('Upload-Post profiles'), and the scope ('all in the account'), with a concrete note that connected social accounts are included. An agent can tell this from the many sibling tools without opening any schemas.

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 use case is implied – list all profiles in the account – but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like get_account_info or get_media, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. It is serviceable but not actively instructive.

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