resolve_creator_from_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral traits — halting on captcha or ambiguity, and the epistemic limit that index results are not proof of newest work or counts — but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or what a successful resolution returns.

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 dense sentences with the fallback condition front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic style ('Stops on captcha/ambiguity') is efficient but borders on cryptic for an agent with no other context.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth. It covers invocation preconditions and failure modes but never describes the return value or how a positive/negative match is represented, which is the key gap for a resolution tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: candidate_video_urls is bounded to 1-5 observed official Douyin URLs (cardinality and source), and creator is constrained to an exact identity match rather than fuzzy matching. The expected format of 'creator' (handle vs ID) remains unspecified.

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 concrete operation: verify that the live author of supplied Douyin video URLs matches the exact requested identity, framed explicitly as a fallback path. That is specific enough to distinguish it from a primary lookup, though the actual output of 'resolve' (creator ID? profile? boolean?) is never stated.

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?

'Fallback:' front-loads the condition that selects this tool (only when the host web search has produced observed URLs), and it sets a clear exclusion: the search index is discovery only, never proof of newest work or counts. It stops short of naming the primary sibling (check_creator) that it falls back from.

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