search_tweets

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost none of it. It does not say whether authentication is required, whether results are ranked or chronological, whether Twitter search operators are supported, or what rate limits apply to a query that can return up to 100 records.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so there is nothing to trim. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, leaving the definition minimal even for a simple tool.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate the shape of returned data and any search-syntax expectations. Neither is present, so an agent cannot confidently predict results or error behavior before calling.

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, count with 10-100 bounds) are already documented in structured form, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no query syntax, no default ordering, no note on how count affects pagination.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Search for tweets") that matches the tool name and distinguishes it from the surrounding profile/list/write siblings, none of which search tweets. It lacks only an explicit statement of what tweet content is matched or the scope of the search.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent must infer entirely on its own that this is the tool for keyword-based tweet retrieval while get_profile/list_followers cover other needs.

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