twitter_retweeted_by

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the auth requirement (X_BEARER_TOKEN) and the exact return structure, which are not covered by annotations. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are secondary.

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 highly concise, using just three lines: a clear purpose statement, the return format, and an auth note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 read-only Twitter lookup with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, return shape, and auth. It does not explicitly clarify the retweet vs. quote tweet distinction or pagination, but these are partially addressed by sibling names and the schema. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, with clear descriptions for id, max_results, and user_fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 specifies the tool's function: returning users who reposted a given post. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like twitter_liking_users and twitter_quote_tweets by using the specific term 'reposted'. The return format is also provided, adding clarity.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose this over twitter_liking_users or twitter_quote_tweets, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied only through the stated purpose, which offers minimal direction.

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