twitter_monitor_account_health

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it reports service status and counts, zero-monitor behavior returns zeroed counts, takes no arguments, and mentions 'Free per call.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences but packs a wealth of information: purpose, contrast with sibling, output details, edge case, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and remains concise without superfluous text.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's scope, return values, time window, and edge-case behavior. Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete and highly informative.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments.' Per the rubric, zero parameters merit a baseline of 4, and this is adequately handled.

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's purpose: 'Account-wide monitoring rollup in ONE call' and distinguishes it from sibling twitter_monitor_health by specifying that the sibling requires an id and reports per-monitor cursor data. It also enumerates the exact outputs: service status, active/paused/total counts, and delivery counts from the last 24 hours.

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 provides contrast with a specific alternative (twitter_monitor_health), giving clear context for when to use this rollup versus the per-monitor tool. It also notes the behavior for zero monitors ('A key with zero monitors gets zeroed counts back, never an error'), but does not include explicit 'when not to use' or other alternatives beyond the sibling.

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