get_tweets_details_by_ids

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, and provides no information about output format, rate limits, authentication, or any other behavioral traits.

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 extremely short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It does not earn its place as it merely restates the tool name with no additional value.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description should explain what 'details' includes or clarify the multi-tweet behavior. It remains vague and incomplete, especially with so many sibling tools that overlap in functionality.

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 fully covers the single parameter tweetIds with an example of comma-separated IDs, so the description does not need to add much. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the example clarifies the expected format.

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 is essentially a sentence-form restatement of the tool name, adding no new information. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_tweet_details or get_tweet_details_v2, which also fetch tweet details.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools for similar purposes, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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