twitter_tweet_counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (data array with start, end, tweet_count, and meta total_tweet_count) and that it covers the last 7 days. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or the fact that the time range can be customized via parameters beyond 7 days. The phrase 'last 7 days' may be misleading since the tool accepts start_time and end_time.

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 two sentences plus a return format line, conveying core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or sections for parameters and examples, which would improve scannability.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter formats (e.g., date-time ISO 8601), the meaning of 'granularity', or that the query must follow Twitter search syntax. The mention of 'last 7 days' conflicts with the ability to specify custom time ranges via parameters.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'query' implicitly ('for a query') but does not explain the required parameter, nor does it describe optional parameters (end_time, start_time, granularity), their formats, or defaults. The default granularity of 'hour' is not mentioned.

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?

Description clearly states it provides post volume over time for a query, distinguishing itself from tools that return tweet content. It specifies it's a cheap way to gauge buzz without reading posts, which differentiates it from sibling tools like twitter_search_recent or twitter_tweets that provide actual post content.

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 indicates this tool is for gauging buzz cheaply and without reading posts, implying it's for aggregate metrics rather than individual posts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like twitter_trends (which shows trending topics) or twitter_search_recent (for detailed search). No named alternatives or exclusions.

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