tiktok_get_delivery_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds only 'aggregate' and 'simple diagnostics' beyond the tool name. It does not explain how limit affects results, what operation_status values mean, how filters are applied, or whether the aggregated result is a summary or a detailed list.

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 a single tight sentence with no filler and the key concept 'Aggregate' is front-loaded. It earns a 4 because it is concise and scannable, though 'simple diagnostics' is slightly under-specified.

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 and no annotations, an agent needs more context about what the aggregated status response looks like and how filters combine. The description does not cover pagination, default ad-level inclusion, return shape, or diagnostic semantics. This is insufficient for confident invocation in non-trivial cases.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to restate parameter meanings. Still, the description adds no extra semantics for how campaignId, adgroupId, or includeAds affect aggregation behavior. The limit parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 ('Aggregate') and names the exact resource scope ('campaign, ad group, and ad delivery status/operation_status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling per-level getters like tiktok_get_campaigns and tiktok_get_ads by signaling cross-level aggregation. 'Simple diagnostics' is somewhat vague but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 word 'Aggregate' implies this tool is for retrieving status across multiple entity levels at once, which is a useful hint against the sibling per-entity tools. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is present only implicitly.

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