search_twitter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the API version (v2), authentication requirement (Bearer Token), and return structure. It does not mention rate limits or destructive potential, but the tool is read-only, so this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, args, and returns. It is somewhat verbose with blank lines but remains front-loaded and efficient. Could be slightly tighter but still good.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. It mentions error field. It does not cover pagination or detailed error handling, but for a search tool this is sufficient. Sibling tools are diverse, so the platform specificity helps completeness.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides examples for query (e.g., 'AI news lang:en') and explicitly states the range for max_results (1-100), going beyond just the type and default.

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 clearly states the tool searches posts on Twitter/X, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (e.g., search_web, search_github) by naming the platform and use cases.

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 lists explicit use cases: monitoring discussions, opinion search, real-time trend tracking. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the use cases are clear.

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