twitter_user_affiliates

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations: the return shape ('profile data per affiliate plus a pagination cursor') and the empty-result behavior for unaffiliated accounts, which an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting an empty list as an error.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the invocation requirement and the empty-case caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully covers the return shape (per-affiliate profile data and a pagination cursor) and the empty case. Combined with the rich input schema and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of guidance on sibling selection keeps it from a 5.

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 the schema already documents team, count, cursor, user_id, and username in detail — including the unusual advisory nature of count. The description only restates the username/user_id either-or requirement, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List the affiliated accounts of an organization profile') and immediately disambiguates with a concrete gloss of what affiliates are ('the smaller accounts X displays under a company's Affiliated badge, e.g. employees or sub-brands'). This clearly separates it from sibling follow/follower tools like twitter_user_followers and twitter_user_following.

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?

Gives the prerequisite for invocation ('Provide a username or user_id') and an important edge-case expectation ('Returns empty for accounts with no affiliations'). It does not explicitly contrast with the adjacent sibling tools (e.g. when to prefer this over user_following), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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