twitter_tweet_detail

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

Description lists specific data returned, adding context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). No contradiction; it aligns with read-only nature and enriches what the tool outputs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key details. First sentence lists returned fields; second provides usage context and parameter clarification. No unnecessary 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields. Does not mention potential nested objects or size limitations, but these are minor for a single-tweet detail tool. Good enough for agent selection.

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%, and description adds: 'Accepts either the tweet id or its full URL' and clarifies exactly one should be provided. This adds value beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the full detail of a single tweet' and lists specific fields (text, author profile, timestamp, engagement counts, media, quoted tweet, parent reply context). It distinguishes from siblings like twitter_tweet_replies and twitter_tweet_thread by noting use before fetching replies or thread.

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?

Includes explicit guidance: 'Use this to inspect a specific tweet before fetching its replies or thread.' Also clarifies that either id or URL can be provided. Does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic differentiation.

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