List every reply to one TikTok comment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds significant behavioral disclosure: TikTok does not return replies to a hidden comment, so an empty list has a specific meaning. It also states the auth requirement and that it is free, enriching beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 compact—two sentences—with the core purpose front-loaded, then a sibling contrast, a critical behavioral warning, and auth/read-only note. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose; no filler.

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?

Given 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, differentiation, and a key edge case, but omits pagination (cursor, maxCount), filtering (status), sorting (sortField/sortOrder), and return format details. It is not fully complete for an agent to call this tool correctly without further schema guidance.

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 coverage is only 29% (videoId and commentId have descriptions). The description adds no explanation for cursor, status, maxCount, sortField, or sortOrder, and does not clarify how these parameters interact. It only references commentId provenance from list_tiktok_comments, leaving most parameters opaque for the agent.

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 verb (list), resource (replies to a single comment), and scope (all replies on a post owned by the authorized account). It explicitly contrasts with list_tiktok_comments, which only attaches three replies, making the tool's purpose and differentiation unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires the TikTok account authorization (pointing to tiktok_account_status) and warns that an empty result against a hidden parent means 'cannot read' not 'no replies', advising to check parent status. It contrasts with list_tiktok_comments, but does not explicitly enumerate all alternative tools or conditions for when not to use this one.

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