clipwise_search_trends

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the need for an API key and behavior without it, and mentions return metrics. However, lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication failures.

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?

Two sentences with clear structure: first states action, second gives usage context, third covers authentication. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, description covers return values (engagement metrics), required parameters, authentication requirement, and usage context. Sufficient for a search tool with 3 parameters.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value with examples for keyword ('fitness', '#cooking') and notes defaults for country and limit, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches TikTok for viral videos by keyword/hashtag and returns engagement metrics. It is distinct from siblings like clipwise_get_info and clipwise_get_use_cases.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases (find viral content, research trends) but does not mention when to avoid or exclude alternatives. Siblings are clearly different, so no competition ambiguity.

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