Twitter Api45 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals important behavioral limitations (fetches 'latest' subscriptions/followers only, warns about scale issues) but omits safety profile, rate limits, and return value format.

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?

Three sentences convey mechanism, purpose, and warning without excessive verbosity, but typos ('subscriptins') and informal phrasing ('needed account') detract from professional clarity.

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?

For a simple boolean-check tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical limitation (scale/timing constraints) but fails to describe what the tool returns (boolean, object, etc.).

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?

While the schema technically has 100% description coverage, the descriptions are empty placeholders ('Example value: '). The description clarifies the relationship mapping ('user' is the potential follower, 'follows' implies the target/needed account), meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 states the tool checks if a user follows a target account, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like 'followers' or 'following'. However, it contains typos ('subscriptins' for subscriptions) and slightly awkward phrasing ('get' instead of 'gets') that prevent a perfect score.

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 includes a warning about unsuitable use cases ('might not be suitable for big accounts or old subscriptions'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like 'followers' or 'following' for different use cases.

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