twitter_tweet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the exact return shape ({data: {...}, includes: {users}}) and the auth requirement (X_BEARER_TOKEN). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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: three short sentences covering purpose, return shape, and auth. No irrelevant detail, front-loaded with the key purpose statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-post lookup, the description is complete given the rich annotations, fully described schema, and explicit return shape. It lacks some edge-case context (e.g., error handling, rate limits), but these are not critical since the schema and annotations cover the rest.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the return shape hint (includes users) indirectly relates to the expansions parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'One post by id' which clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a single post by its ID. It lacks an explicit verb but is specific enough to distinguish from plural/list tools like twitter_tweets. The 'by id' scoping is clear.

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 usage is implied: use this when you need a single post by ID. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as twitter_tweets or twitter_search_recent, nor any mention of when not to use it. The helpful auth note is about prerequisites, not usage context.

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