search_tweets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about product tabs and return fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or confirm that this is a read-only operation. For a search tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then product details and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, product variants, and return format. Minor gaps include no mention of pagination or count behavior, but these are implicit in the schema. Overall, it is reasonably complete for straightforward search use.

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?

The description compensates for low schema coverage (33%) by explaining 'product' (which picks the tab) and the return fields, but does not clarify 'count' semantics or add detail beyond the schema for 'query'. It adds partial value but not full parameter guidance.

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 defines a clear verb+resource ('Search X for tweets') and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_tweet (single tweet) or get_user_tweets (user timeline) by emphasizing query-based search. The 'product' parameter further specifies search tabs, making the scope distinct.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need to search tweets by query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use get_user_tweets for a single user's posts'). The description lacks direct guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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