check_quoted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, which could lead an agent to assume side effects. The return value is stated, but behavioral traits like idempotency or data freshness are missing.

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 extremely concise with one sentence covering purpose and return value. No unnecessary words, but it could benefit from a sentence on usage context without sacrificing efficiency.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does. However, it does not cover error cases (e.g., user not found, tweet not found) or rate limiting behavior. For a simple check tool, it's adequate but has gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description adds the useful hint that only one of username/user_id/user_link needs to be provided, which is not explicit in the schema. This adds value beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 'check' with the resource 'whether a user has quoted or retweeted a tweet' and clearly states the return statuses. It distinguishes from siblings like check_retweet and get_tweet_quotes by covering both quote and retweet checks in one tool.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like check_retweet or get_tweet_quotes. It implies the use case of checking both quotes and retweets but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusive conditions.

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