tiktok_search_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: returns recommended keywords with search volume estimates, and the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Get' and 'Returns'. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or how the limit parameter affects results, so behavioral transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the return value is stated immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, read-only suggestion tool, the description plus schema is mostly complete: required inputs are in the schema, and the description states the key return output. There is no output schema or annotations, so a bit more detail about the exact response shape would help, but the essentials are present.

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 schema already documents advertiserId and keywords, including that keywords are 'Seed keywords to get suggestions for', and limit has clear default/min/max constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and with 67% schema coverage the description does not need to fully compensate, but it also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Get keyword suggestions for TikTok Search Ads', and states the concrete return value: 'recommended keywords with search volume estimates'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly entity-listing or status/health endpoints.

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 'for TikTok Search Ads' gives implicit context about when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Since none of the siblings appear to offer keyword suggestions, the lack of explicit routing is minor but still only implied.

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