tiktok list ad videos

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral facts beyond that: URLs are signed, expire after roughly six hours, need re-resolving, and the response includes publicly served preview/cover URLs. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 with no filler: the first states the scope and returned fields, the second delivers the critical expiry caveat and the follow-up action. It is front-loaded and every sentence carries value.

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 an output schema present and only three well-documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the response's notable fields and the URL re-resolution requirement, so there are no critical gaps.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including pagination bounds and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action (list), a clear resource (the advertiser's whole video library), and enumerates the returned fields (file name, duration, dimensions, signature, preview/cover URLs). It is distinct from list-type siblings such as tiktok_list_ad_images because it is explicitly about videos and the full library scope.

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 establishes clear operational context: this returns the full video library and the URLs must be re-resolved via tiktok_get_asset_urls before use because they expire in about six hours. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as tiktok_get_video_assets or tiktok_get_uploaded_video, so it stops short of a full 5.

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