twitter_tweet_counts

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description adds the critical 'last 7 days' time constraint, the exact return format, and the X_BEARER_TOKEN authentication requirement. This provides substantial behavioral context not present in the structured fields.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences covering purpose, return format, and authentication. It is front-loaded with the core purpose first and every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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 tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description provides the return structure, auth needs, time scope, and use-case guidance. Combined with the read-only/idempotent annotations, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying the default time range ('last 7 days') and confirming the query operator syntax as 'same as search,' which helps clarify the query parameter beyond the schema's basic description.

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 states it returns 'Post volume over time for a query' with a specific scope ('last 7 days') and distinguishes from reading posts by calling it 'the cheap way to gauge buzz without reading posts.' The verb 'Returns' and the explicit output structure make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use it ('cheap way to gauge buzz') and contrasts it with reading posts, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. It gives clear context for volume-over-time queries versus actual post retrieval.

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