Search TikTok

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: credit spend ('Spends about a credit'), output format (compact JSON with specific fields), ranking by plays, and the notice that there is no ad library. This is genuinely additive.

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 three sentences: the first establishes what it does, the second details the return format, and the third names the alternative and cost. Every sentence earns its place, the content is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is zero fluff.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, output structure, ranking, credit cost, and the alternative for open-ended research. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the annotations already handle safety.

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% — both query and limit are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning (e.g., no elaboration on query syntax or limit behavior) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 opens with 'Organic TikTok keyword search' — a specific verb and resource — and immediately clarifies it's organic (not an ad library). It states the use case (mine hooks/trends/remixable creative) and names the sibling tool it is not. This is fully differentiated from other search tools like search_instagram or search_youtube.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use research_ads for open-ended research', giving a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. The description also implies this is for keyword-driven, top-performing content, which sets expectations for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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