twitter_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the tool requires an APIFY_TOKEN and therefore runs through a third-party provider. It says nothing about rate limits, cost, or pagination/truncation for large limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that includes the action, the target, the provider, and the auth prerequisite with zero wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple, fully-schema-documented two-parameter read tool, but with no output schema the description should ideally note the shape of results or the pagination/truncation behavior for the 1-500 limit range.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax hints for the query (e.g., search operators) or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search tweets on X/Twitter', plus the execution channel (Apify). This is clearly distinguishable from the Discord/Gmail siblings, but no sibling is named or contrasted, so it stops short of the top score.

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 names the prerequisite credential (APIFY_TOKEN) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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