twitter_grok_config

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explains what the tool returns (eligibility, X's verbatim reasons when not eligible, free access status, model options) and explicitly states that eligibility is a property of the X account, not the API key. It also includes the 'Free' note, which is non-obvious. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits; it adds valuable return and account-dependency information.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, then lists what it returns, adds a key caveat about account vs. API key, and ends with 'Free.' Every sentence earns its place, with no superfluous content. It is front-loaded and 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?

For a read-only configuration check with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, return contents, the account dependency, and cost. It does not mention error handling or authentication details, but the mention of 'authenticated account' and 'Free' implies the necessary context. Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema annotations, it is adequately complete.

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%, as each of the four parameters has a detailed description. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameter usage, but it does hint at the account-based nature (auth_token and ct0) indirectly. With full schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra over the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool checks whether the authenticated account can use Grok and which models are available. It specifies the resource (Grok) and the action (check eligibility and models), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling twitter_grok_chat by focusing on configuration and eligibility rather than chat. The description also clarifies the account-based nature of eligibility, which is a specific and unique purpose.

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 directs usage: 'ask this about the same account you intend to run twitter_grok_chat as.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (before using Grok chat) and ties it to the specific account. It also notes that the tool is 'Free,' which is a practical usage consideration. While it does not list exclusions, the instruction is specific and actionable.

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