get_tiktok_hashtag

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (JSON) and the fields returned. The parameter constraint (provide either hashtag_name or hashtag_id) is stated. It implies read-only operation. No rate limit or auth info, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 very concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and return format, the second explains parameter usage and connection to a sibling tool. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (ID, title, description, video count, view count). The parameters are well-documented in both schema and description. The sibling tool connection is explicitly mentioned, providing complete context for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Hashtag text without the # symbol'). The description restates the mutual exclusivity and adds a minor clarification ('hashtag_id: Numeric'). But overall, the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the description adds limited semantic value beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'TikTok hashtag details and stats', and lists the returned fields (ID, title, description, video count, view count). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the returned ID can be used with get_tiktok_hashtag_videos.

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 indicates when to use (need hashtag details) and the parameter choices (either name or ID). It also provides a clear next step: use the returned ID with a sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or discuss alternatives beyond that one sibling.

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