twitter_user_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of rate limits, result ordering, or limitations) beyond these annotations, missing an opportunity to add value.

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?

Description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every sentence is informative and 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields and mentioning pagination. Parameter descriptions include examples. However, it omits comparison to sibling tools like twitter_advanced_search, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, with each parameter (query, count, cursor) having a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond summarizing pagination; baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the informational burden.

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 the tool searches for Twitter user accounts by name, keyword, or topic, and specifies the returned fields (username, display name, bio, follower count, verification status) with pagination. It provides use cases like discovering accounts in a niche or finding brand handles, distinguishing it from sibling tools like twitter_user_info.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to discover accounts in a niche, find brand handles, or locate a person when you only know their name.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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