x-ai-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the time constraint ('last 7 days') and search operator support, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists), leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise 'Args' section with clear bullet points. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with parameters), no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter details well. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives and some behavioral aspects like rate limits, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'query' supports operators like 'from:user' and provides examples, and specifies that 'count' has a range (10-100) and default (20), which the schema only partially covers with a default value. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Search recent tweets') with resource scope ('last 7 days'), distinguishing it from siblings like x_user_tweets (user-specific) or x_home_timeline (personal feed). It provides a verb+resource combination that is precise and 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?

The description provides clear context ('last 7 days') and mentions support for X search operators, which helps differentiate from tools like x_get_tweet (single tweet) or x_user_tweets (user-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, missing full explicit guidance.

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