tiktok_get_events

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It does reveal an important trait: 'best-effort endpoint checks plus reporting dimensions as fallback', which signals the tool may not return results from a single clean endpoint. It does not state read-only status, failure modes, or permission implications, but the get/discover framing implies a non-mutating operation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful fallback behavior without redundancy.

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?

The description is reasonably complete given that the schema covers most parameters, but the absence of an output schema and annotations increases the burden on the description. It does not clarify what the returned event/diagnostics data contains or how the optional bcId/appId/pixelId paths affect results, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool is the right one.

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 86%, so the input schema already explains most parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'pixel/app events' and 'tracking diagnostics', which aligns with pixelId/appId and date parameters, but does not materially expand on the schema's parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Discover') and a resource ('pixel/app events or accessible tracking diagnostics for an advertiser'), which distinguishes it from tools like tiktok_get_pixels and tiktok_get_insights. However, 'events' and 'tracking diagnostics' remain somewhat underspecified, so it stops short of fully precise.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need pixel/app events or tracking diagnostics. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related tools such as tiktok_get_pixels or tiktok_get_insights, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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