twitter_user_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the return shape (username, display name, bio, follower count, verification status) and the presence of a pagination cursor, but discloses no rate limits, auth requirements, or result-capping quirks that the schema reveals for count.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability first, then use cases. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned profile fields, and the schema covers all three parameters. It is nearly complete for a read-only search tool; only the sibling-tool routing and upstream pagination quirk are left to the schema to surface.

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%, and the schema itself carries rich detail (the count advisory cap, cursor semantics, query examples), so the baseline applies. The description only echoes 'with a pagination cursor' and adds no syntax or formatting guidance beyond the schema.

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 for Twitter/X user accounts') plus the search dimensions (name, keyword, topic), which is clearly distinct from fetch-style siblings like twitter_user_info or twitter_user_info_by_id. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the closest overlapping sibling, twitter_advanced_search, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 three concrete use cases (discover accounts in a niche, find brand handles, locate a person by name), which is clear context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of exclusions or routing, e.g. 'use twitter_user_info when you already have a username', so it isn't a full when/when-not statement.

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