twitter_tweets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with those by calling it a 'lookup'. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 100-ID limit, the auth requirement (X_BEARER_TOKEN), and the return object shape. This is valuable supplemental information without contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured: one purpose sentence, a one-line return shape, and a one-line auth note. It is front-loaded and every sentence carries 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?

Given that the schema covers all parameters and there is no output schema, the description compensates with a clear return structure and auth requirement. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a simple batch lookup with strong annotation coverage, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter docs. It adds the 'up to 100' limit and engagement metrics mention, but those are also present in the schema (ids description and tweet_fields default). No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Batch post lookup by ids') and includes key scope ('up to 100') and a differentiator ('with engagement metrics'). It clearly distinguishes this batch endpoint from the singular 'twitter_tweet' sibling by emphasizing batch behavior and metrics.

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 phrase 'Batch post lookup by ids' clearly signals this is the tool to use when fetching multiple posts by their IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the batch-ids scope is clear from context, and the sibling tool list shows a singular variant that would serve single-post needs.

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