Read the connected TikTok account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful prerequisite (TikTok connection) that is not in the annotations. It also explicitly repeats 'Read-only' which reinforces but does not contradict annotations. The incremental value is the connection requirement, which is useful for an agent to confirm.

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?

Three sentences, all substantive. The first sentence states exactly what the tool returns; the second gives concrete use-case examples; the third covers read-only nature and the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and critical info is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It lists the exact data fields returned, states the precondition (connection), and provides typical query phrasings. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call this tool and what to expect back.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter detail because none exist; it correctly focuses on the output fields and usage context.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the connected TikTok account') and enumerates the exact fields returned (display name, username, bio, verified status, follower/following/likes/video counts). This is a clear, unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from broader analytics tools like tiktok_account_insights or tiktok_account_status, even without explicitly naming siblings.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('how many followers do we have on TikTok', 'how is our TikTok doing', 'confirm whose account is linked before posting') and a prerequisite (TikTok must be connected via Settings ▸ Connectors ▸ TikTok). This gives the agent clear guidance on when to invoke this tool and what needs to be true beforehand.

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