twitter_user

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

With no annotations and a sparse description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the user ID does not exist), or any side effects. The return format is given but does not cover behavior.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections for parameters or behavior). Its brevity is a virtue but omits necessary details.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover the optional user_fields parameter, default field selection, error conditions, or any context beyond the basic purpose. The tool has 2 parameters and no structured metadata, yet the description provides minimal help.

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 2 parameters (id and user_fields) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose or usage of user_fields, nor does it clarify what fields are returned by default. The shown return format provides some output context but fails to add meaning to the parameters.

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 explicitly states 'One account by numeric user id,' clearly indicating the tool retrieves a single Twitter user account using a numeric ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like twitter_user_by_username (which uses username) and twitter_users (multiple users).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for numeric IDs while twitter_user_by_username is for usernames, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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