Search Users

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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is a read-like POST that does not publish to social platforms (reconciling readOnlyHint=false with the lack of side effects), it may consume paid API credits, and it requires confirm=true. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and cannot derive from the annotation set.

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 the purpose in the first clause, then return shape, pagination, and cost/auth caveats. Efficient overall, though the cursor pagination instruction partially duplicates the schema text and could be trimmed.

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 describing the return payload (a `users` array whose objects contain `user_info` with nickname, unique_id, signature, follower/following counts, avatar, plus associated `items`), and it covers pagination, credit cost, and the confirm gate. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 all five parameters (query, cursor, confirm, trim, account) are already documented in the schema. The description's notes on cursor pagination and confirm largely restate the schema, adding little new semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (searches), resource (TikTok users), and matching surface (keyword or name), plus the practical intent of finding creators/accounts. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tiktok_search_by_keyword, tiktok_search_by_hashtag, and tiktok_top_search, which target content rather than user entities.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('useful for finding creators or accounts matching a query'), states the pagination workflow (use cursor from the previous response), and flags the confirm=true prerequisite for the credit-consuming call. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling tool or when-not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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