twitter_list_tweets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description builds on this with genuinely non-obvious behavior: search-index lag causing missing recent posts, no retweets returned, and the filterable nature. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them. A small deduction for not addressing return-format or error behavior, though pagination via cursor is mentioned.

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?

Five dense, front-loaded sentences, each earning its place: purpose → key filters → limitations/lag → alternative tool → pagination and ID location. No filler, no redundancy, and the critical differentiator ('FILTERABLE List feed') is bolded and appears early.

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 7-param list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, alternates, caveats, pagination, and ID discovery. With no output schema, it might briefly note the pagination response shape, but 'Paginate with cursor' plus the rich schema largely compensate. Minor gap keeps it from a 5.

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 exceptionally detailed parameter descriptions (clamping behavior, exclusive until semantics, 400 on bad format, string 'true'/'false' for include_replies). The description adds the 'Paginate with cursor' directive but this is also implied by the cursor schema entry. Per calibration, high coverage makes 3 the correct baseline since the schema carries the load.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pairing ('Read the posts written by the members of a public Twitter/X List, newest first, through X's search index') that fully specifies scope, ordering, and mechanism. Explicitly differentiates from sibling twitter_list_timeline by contrast ('Use twitter_list_timeline instead when...').

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (twitter_list_timeline) and states exactly when to choose it over this tool ('when you want the List exactly as X shows it, retweets and native ordering included'), including the tradeoff ('accept that it takes no filters'). This is textbook when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance.

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