get_twitter_user_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses some response content but omits important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, caching behavior (beyond the parameter), or whether the profile is public. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key data points, making it easy to scan.

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 lack of output schema, the description partially explains return values but remains vague ('stats' is broad). With only two parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive context. It could detail the structure of the response or note any limitations.

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 both parameters documented in the schema. The description adds context about the response content (bio, follower count, stats) but does not enhance understanding of the parameters themselves. A score of 3 reflects the baseline when schema already covers parameters.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Twitter/X user's profile information', specifying key data fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_twitter_user_tweets which focuses on tweets, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools such as get_twitter_user_tweets for tweet retrieval.

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