Lookup posts

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

Annotations already communicate that this is read-only and open-world, and the description adds a useful constraint: it supports up to 100 IDs via GET /2/tweets. However, it does not disclose what the response contains or how missing or invalid IDs are handled.

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 one short sentence with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. The trailing phrase 'the user named' is somewhat unclear and prevents a perfect score.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally adequate, especially with annotations covering safety and scope. But with no output schema, it does not tell the agent what response shape to expect or how partial results are returned.

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 0%, so the description needed to clarify parameter semantics, but it only restates the 100-ID cap already present in maxItems. It does not explain what valid post IDs look like, whether IDs need prefixes, or how the IDs map to the endpoint.

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 names the exact endpoint (GET /2/tweets) and the ?ids= parameter, making clear that this tool looks up posts by a list of IDs. It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like x_organic_get_post or x_organic_user_posts.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. An agent is not told to use this when it has a list of post IDs, nor told to prefer x_organic_get_post for a single post or x_organic_user_posts for a user's timeline.

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