Get TikTok video stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them with a precise cost model: per-post charge for successful and for deleted/private/missing posts, a per-run start fee, and free bot-check rows. It also discloses the return shape (one flat row per post) and the exact fields, which annotations never cover.

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, front-loaded with the core capability and the accepted inputs, then return shape, then cost. The pricing sentence is dense but each clause (deleted/private/missing, run start, free bot pages) carries distinct decision-relevant information, so little could be cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does by listing the full row contents including author follower and like totals. Combined with the cost model and per-run limits, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the bill.

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%, with each of the three parameters documented including the 1-1,000 range and default. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameters themselves; its added value is concentrated in outputs and pricing, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Read public stats for TikTok video or photo posts') and names both accepted input forms, URL or post ID. It also enumerates the returned metrics, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for pulling per-post TikTok metrics, and the per-run limits (up to 1,000 posts) hint at scale. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and with no sibling tools there is nothing to route between, so this is adequate but thin.

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