search_twitter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search categories but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether results are read-only. The behavior beyond the search action is largely undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and search categories.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain how to use parameters, what results look like, or how pagination works, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 descriptions are only example values, so the baseline for 100% coverage is 3. The description adds some meaning by listing possible search types that likely map to the 'type' parameter, but it does not explain 'count', 'query', or 'cursor' beyond their names.

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 it searches Twitter and lists the specific search categories (Top, Latest, Videos, Photos, People), which is a specific verb+resource with useful modifiers. It distinguishes from most sibling search tools (search_community, search_lists), though it does not differentiate from search_twitter_v2.

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 implies usage for searching Twitter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_twitter_v2 or other search-related tools. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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