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 of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the rate limiting constraint (60 req/min), which is valuable operational context. However, it omits other critical behavioral traits: whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), pagination behavior, or what constitutes a successful response.

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 three-sentence structure is front-loaded with the rate limit warning (appropriate for a WARNING label), and sentences are efficient. However, the contact email occupies space that could have been used to describe the tool's actual purpose, revealing misplaced prioritization rather than true conciseness.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to identify the searchable resource (critical given numerous sibling search tools), explain the pagination cursor, or describe the search_type parameter's purpose. The rate limit warning alone is insufficient context for proper tool 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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema's example values (e.g., 'cybertruck' for query). It does not clarify the expected format for cursor pagination or valid values for search_type.

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 mentions 'The Search endpoint' but fails to specify what resource is being searched (tweets, users, etc.) or how it differs from sibling search tools like communities_search or jobs_search. Given the Twitter/X context of siblings, this omission forces agents to guess the tool's scope.

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?

While the description warns about rate limits (60 requests/minute), it provides no guidance on when to select this generic search tool versus more specific alternatives like communities_posts_search_latest or jobs_search. No prerequisites or selection criteria are specified.

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