read_quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: 'best-effort' and 'coverage is partial, X does not expose a complete quotes endpoint.' This goes beyond the structured annotations and provides critical expectations about data completeness.

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-load the purpose and immediately follow with the key limitation. No filler or redundant information, every sentence 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 tool's simplicity, the output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it does it, and its limitations. No critical behavioral detail is missing for a read-only, best-effort quote retrieval tool.

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% and the description does not explain what url_or_id or limit mean. While parameter names are intuitive, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without explicit guidance on usage constraints like limit's default/maximum.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('quote-tweets of an X post'), and distinguishes from siblings like read_replies and read_tweet. It also mentions the method via search:quoted_tweet_id, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for quote-tweets, which differentiates it from reading a tweet or replies. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'use read_replies for replies'), so it falls short of a 5.

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