twitter_user_affiliates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read. The description adds value by stating it returns profile data per affiliate plus a pagination cursor, and returns empty for accounts with no affiliations. No contradictions 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and details. No extraneous information; every word earns its place.

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?

The description explains the concept of affiliates, what is returned (profile data, pagination cursor), and the empty case. It lacks explicit error handling or rate limit info, but with openWorldHint and good schema, it's sufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., mentioning to provide exactly one of username or user_id is already in schema). 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists affiliated accounts of an organization profile (the 'Affiliated' badge), specifying the resource (affiliates) and action (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like twitter_user_followers or twitter_user_info by focusing on a specific Twitter feature.

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 when to use: for listing affiliated accounts of an org profile, providing a username or user_id. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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