search_tweets

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

With no annotations, the description should detail behavioral traits like rate limits, result limits, or authentication needs. It only mentions the query syntax, omitting crucial read-only hint, pagination behavior, or output format.

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 one sentence and directly to the point. It could be improved by adding a second sentence for usage guidelines, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the search returns, how pagination works, or any limitations, leaving the agent without essential context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the query parameter supports Advanced Search syntax and giving examples (from:, since:, min_faves:). This clarifies the query purpose 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?

The description clearly states it searches tweets using X/Twitter Advanced Search syntax, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_mentions or search_users. The verb+resource combination is specific and informative.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_mentions or get_user_tweets. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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