search_twitter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination (implied by 'cursor' parameter but not explained), or what the search returns (e.g., tweets, users). This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it under-specifies rather than being overly verbose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and an output schema exists (which helps), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral aspects, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain 'query' (e.g., search syntax), 'count' (max results), 'cursor' (pagination), or 'product' (e.g., 'Top' vs 'Latest'). With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 'Search Twitter with a query' states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('Twitter'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_timeline' or 'get_user_mentions' which also retrieve tweets. It specifies the action but lacks detail on what kind of search (e.g., public tweets, users, trends).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for retrieving tweets (e.g., 'get_timeline', 'get_user_mentions'), the description doesn't indicate this is for general keyword-based searches, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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