Search TikTok

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotent=false): it discloses a real cost ('Spends about a credit'), the ranking behavior ('ranked by plays'), and the exact return shape (compact JSON with desc/author/handle/plays/likes/link/cover). Cost and return-format disclosure are exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return payload, then the alternative, then cost. Every clause carries a distinct fact (negative scope, output fields, ranking, alternative tool, credit cost) with zero 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. Combined with the stated ranking, cost, and the explicit absence of an ad library, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and set expectations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both query ('keyword or hashtag, no # needed') and limit (1–25, default 8). The description adds no syntax or format detail on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (organic TikTok keyword search) and immediately bounds it with 'there is NO TikTok ad library', which separates it from the ad-search siblings like search_meta_ads and search_google_ads. The stated output (top-performing videos for mining hooks/trends) tells the agent exactly what it gets back, distinguishing it from post_to_tiktok and tiktok_post_status.

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?

Gives the use case (mine hooks/trends/remixable creative) and names a concrete alternative with its selecting condition: 'Use research_ads for open-ended research.' The negative scope statement about the absent ad library further routes the agent away from a wrong expectation. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool applies.

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