tiktok_get_entities_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states GET-only and labels itself an escape hatch, signaling read-only behavior and raw/uncurated output. It does not discuss error behavior, response format, or rate-limit implications, but the core safety profile is clear.

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, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded: what the tool lists and how it is parameterized. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying why this raw tool exists relative to curated alternatives.

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 raw list tool, this description covers the essential selection criteria and purpose well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the native response shape and raw-endpoint caveats implicit, and it does not spell out the relationship to sibling tools beyond the vague 'curated schemas' reference.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It does by mapping 'caller-selected native fields' to fields, and 'filtering, sorting, pagination' to filtering, orderField/orderType, and page/pageSize. It does not explain exact syntax or constraints, but it gives enough semantic grounding to understand each parameter group.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource class ('TikTok campaigns, ad groups, or ads'), and defines scope with caller-selected fields, filtering, sorting, and pagination. The second sentence distinguishes this as a raw, GET-only escape hatch versus the MCP's curated schemas, which clearly sets it apart from the curated sibling tools.

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 phrase 'escape hatch' and 'without waiting for the MCP's curated schemas' gives an explicit when-to-use: use this when you need newly released entity fields before curated schemas are available. It does not explicitly say 'use the curated get_* tools for stable fields,' so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement.

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