twitter_quote_tweets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact return shape ({data:[{id, text, author_id, public_metrics}], meta:{result_count, next_token}}) and stating the authentication requirement (X_BEARER_TOKEN). This goes beyond the structured fields and helps the agent understand pagination and output layout.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a clear 'Returns' block with the response schema, and an 'Auth' note. No extraneous words or repetition of schema details. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the resource, the return structure, and authentication. It also hints at pagination via next_token in the meta. It could have mentioned that results are paginated via the pagination_token parameter, but the schema already documents that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters (id, max_results, tweet_fields, pagination_token), so the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, such as format details or inter-parameter dependencies. It does implicitly reference id via 'a given post', but this is marginal.

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 "Posts quoting a given post" clearly indicates the tool retrieves posts that quote a specific post, aligning with the tool name and the required 'id' parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like twitter_tweets or twitter_search_recent by focusing specifically on quote tweets. However, the phrasing is slightly ambiguous ('posts' as verb vs noun) and doesn't explicitly state 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 by naming the resource (quoted post) and including parameters like max_results and pagination_token, suggesting a paginated listing operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as twitter_search_recent or twitter_tweets, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions beyond the auth note.

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