twitter_monitor_deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine value by explaining the three-phase latency model (detected_lag from tweet post to enqueue, delivery_lag for queue-to-webhook, total_lag), revealing the underlying pipeline architecture that helps agents interpret results. No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with the action verb and resource, with a dense but justified parenthetical explaining the latency semantics. The trailing 'Free per call' is slightly odd and the single-sentence structure with semicolons is dense, but every element serves a purpose in about 50 words.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, zero required params, and strong annotations, the description covers exactly the non-obvious parts: the latency breakdown definitions and cross-monitor scope. Nothing material is left unexplained that schema or annotations don't already handle.

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% — the limit parameter is fully documented with range (1-200) and default (50). The description's field list provides result context but doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'List your most recent monitor delivery events across every monitor, most recent first' with an explicit field list. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like twitter_monitor_webhook_list (webhook config) and twitter_monitor_list (monitors themselves) by scoping this to delivery events with latency metrics.

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?

'Across every monitor' and 'most recent first' establish clear scope and ordering. The explanation of the three latency fields signals when this tool is needed (latency diagnosis). However, there's no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives as seen in the top-tier calibration example.

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