Trending Feed

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

Annotations give safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: credit consumption, the confirm=true gate, and the reassurance that this read-like POST doesn't publish to social platforms — which pre-empts confusion caused by 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 the return shape, then the cost/safety caveats. The return-field enumeration is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema; nothing is truly wasted.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating aweme_list and the key nested fields (aweme_id, desc, statistics, video, author, image_post_info). Cost and safety behavior are covered; pagination/rate-limit behavior is the only notable omission.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirm=true requirement and adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail for region/trim/account, so 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?

Specific verb ('fetches') plus resource ('TikTok's trending/For You feed') plus scope ('for a given region'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as tiktok_search_by_keyword, tiktok_get_popular_creators, and tiktok_profile_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?

States the use case explicitly ('useful for discovering viral content and what's currently popular') and lists the precondition (paid credits, confirm=true). It doesn't name a specific sibling alternative or when-not-to-use it, 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.