get_tweet

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context about the returned data (full text, author, engagement metrics, conversation context), but it omits other behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication requirements, or read-only confirmation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word contributes either to what the tool does or what it returns.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the lookup mechanism and the kinds of data returned. While it could benefit from usage-vs-alternative guidance, the simplicity reduces the need for more.

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% for the single parameter tweet_id, and the description only echoes 'by its ID' without adding further semantic detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the adjacent schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific tweet') with a clear retrieval method ('by its ID'). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_timeline, get_mentions, and search_tweets, which have different scopes.

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 implies use when you have a tweet ID and need details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_tweets or get_timeline. No exclusions or comparison guidance is provided.

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