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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the sort order ('newest first') and the credit cost ('1 credit per tweet'), which are behavioral details not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

A single sentence conveys the core purpose and key behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary function and includes ordering and cost without wasted words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read tool: it states the resource and ordering. However, it does not explicitly mention that the required id parameter is the tweet ID, nor does it describe pagination behavior (though cursor is in the schema). For a tool with only one required parameter and no output schema, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 50% (fresh and cursor have descriptions; id and count do not). The description does not mention any parameters, so it fails to clarify the meaning of id (likely the tweet ID) or count. It adds no value beyond the schema, and for the undocumented parameters it leaves the agent without explicit guidance.

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 resource ('Tweets that quote a tweet') and the ordering ('newest first'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_retweeters (retweets) and get_replies (replies). The action is implied by the tool name and context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_retweeters or get_replies. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternate tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and purpose.

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