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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: the output shape, the per-account scope, and the full access/payment model (0.02 USDC via x402 with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, or API key with no per-call charge). Missing are error behavior (what happens for an unknown handle) and rate limits, which is why it is not a 5.

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 core purpose and trigger are front-loaded in the first sentence, the scope boundary follows immediately, and the billing detail is isolated in a bracketed second block. No sentence is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (a 0-100 score and follower count) and what the scope is (single account, not topical). Combined with the payment/auth disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage ('X/Twitter handle, with or without the leading @'). The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, 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 and resource: an influence score for a single X/Twitter account, and names the return values (0-100 score, follower count). It also draws a boundary ('per-account snapshot, not a topic aggregate') that separates it from the social/topic tools in the sibling list, though it does not name a specific sibling.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user asks about a specific influencer or KOL, or wants to know how much weight an account carries') plus an exclusion against topic-level aggregation. It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should use for topic aggregates, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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