twitter_account_me

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing authentication via API key, clarifying that this is an account read (not Twitter data), and stating it is free with no credit cost. These details are not present in the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), enriching the behavioral context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by essential caveats. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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, no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return fields, authentication, and cost implications. It is complete for the agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain params. It still usefully describes what the tool returns, which is more than sufficient given the baseline for 0 params.

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 action (Get), the resource (YOUR twitterapis.com account details), and enumerates the specific data returned (email, name, credits, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting this is an account read, not Twitter data.

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 provides clear context: it is for retrieving account details, not Twitter data, and it is free (does not spend credits). This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool over data-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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