twitter_community_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining why viewer-relative fields (role, can_join, is_pinned, viewer_relationship_type) are always null due to pooled rotating accounts, and why rules[].description is always null. This prevents misinterpreting expected nulls as errors—valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists return fields, clarifies the ID format, highlights important null behavior, and closes with sibling pointers. It is long but every sentence carries essential information; no filler or repetition beyond what aids clarity.

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?

With no output schema and a response containing many heterogeneous fields (banners, rules, profiles, facepile IDs), the description compensates thoroughly by naming the return fields, explaining deliberate nulls, and clarifying ID semantics. It also gives usage boundaries with sibling tools, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed semantics for community_id, including type, format, example, and exclusions. The description restates the URL pattern and the 'NOT a Space id / NOT a user id' distinction, which reinforces but does not add significant new parameter meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get the metadata for one X Community by its numeric id" and then enumerates the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing to twitter_community_members and twitter_community_tweets for other concerns, making its scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly states both the context for use (single community metadata lookup by numeric ID) and directs users to alternatives: "Use twitter_community_members for the roster and twitter_community_tweets for the posts." It also clarifies the ID format with a concrete URL pattern, which guides correct invocation.

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