tiktok_get_report_raw

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal meaningful traits: the report is synchronous, native, does not compute aliases, and does not auto-split incompatible selections, which are important operational nuances. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, potential errors, rate limits, or permission expectations, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a use condition and sibling distinction. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the purpose and differentiation immediately obvious.

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?

This is a 14-parameter raw reporting tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides the why and a sibling comparison, but it omits almost everything an agent would need to assemble a correct request: meaning of report types, data levels, date formats, filtering syntax, pagination limits, and expected response behavior. It is not complete enough for the complexity involved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 14 parameters, but it only acknowledges 'caller-selected dimensions and metrics.' It provides no explanation of reportType, serviceType, dataLevel, filtering, orderField, pagination, or the other parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with this many inputs and enums.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a native TikTok synchronous report.' It further clarifies that dimensions and metrics are caller-selected, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tiktok_get_insights by noting that it does not calculate aliases or auto-split incompatible selections. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from nearby 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 description gives a concrete usage trigger: 'Use when a current API field is not yet in tiktok://metrics.' It also names the alternative tiktok_get_insights and states a key behavioral difference, so an agent can decide when this raw native report is preferred over the more abstracted insights call. This is explicit and actionable.

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