twitter_user_status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already declare a safe read operation; the description enriches this by explaining that every outcome is a successful HTTP response, that protected accounts count as 'alive', and how to interpret X's own reason. 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?

The description is long but well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then return semantics, then comparisons, then edge cases. Every sentence contributes—the only quibble is the length could be trimmed, but nothing is wasteful.

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 single-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: all four status values, conditions for each, numeric id disclosure, and the protected-account edge case. It is complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 single parameter already includes a clear description with examples ('WITHOUT the leading @ (e.g. 'elonmusk', 'openai', 'sama')'). The description adds no parameter-specific info, but the schema carries the full burden, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ('Check whether a Twitter/X account is alive, suspended, or deleted') and enumerates the exact statuses returned. It further distinguishes itself from twitter_user_info by explaining that the sibling cannot distinguish a ban from a typo, which is strong differentiation in a large sibling list.

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 tool ('Use this instead of twitter_user_info') and gives a precise decision rule—when the QUESTION is whether the account still exists—with a rationale (user info answers all miss-cases the same way). Adds operational guidance: 'read the status field rather than treating a suspension as an error.'

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