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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It adds billing details (1 credit, $0.01, payment method) and the cursor limit, which are useful. However, it omits response format, authentication needs, and error behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 concise and front-loads the core purpose. The billing note and warning are relevant but could be more compact; still, every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic usage and cost but lacks response structure and potential pitfalls (e.g., rate limits). It's sufficient for a simple call but not fully complete for an agent expecting to parse results.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond emphasizing the required searchTerm and mentioning cursor limits, which relates to the cursor parameter but doesn't deepen its semantics.

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 all of Twitter with a search term. It distinguishes itself from the POST sibling only by noting the GET limit, not by purpose, so it doesn't fully differentiate siblings but is unambiguous about its function.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to use POST when a large cursor is involved, and implies GET for normal searches. It doesn't cover alternatives beyond the POST variant, but that's the key decision point for this tool.

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