User's Audience Demographics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: a per-request credit cost, the mandatory confirm=true gate, and an explicit clarification that these read-like POSTs do not publish to social platforms, which resolves the tension with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then cost/consent caveat — a logical order with little waste. The final sentence about read-like POST requests is slightly tangential but earns its place by reconciling with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned audienceLocations array and its fields (country, countryCode, count, percentage), and it covers the cost and consent constraints. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so handle, account, and confirm are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm requirement and the credit cost but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.

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 (retrieves) and resource (audience demographic data / follower locations by country) for a TikTok user, and names the exact fields returned. This clearly separates it from siblings like tiktok_followers or tiktok_profile_region, which return different data shapes.

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 implies usage (fetch follower location breakdown for a given handle) and adds a strong pre-condition (confirm=true, 26 credits per request), but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as tiktok_profile_region or tiktok_followers. No exclusions or routing guidance.

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