get_tweet_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('~20 per page') and time-bound support. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It conveys the essential information without fluff. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's efficient.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, usage guidance, pagination, and time filters. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but it is reasonably complete for a fetch tool with good parameter descriptions in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the cursor pagination ('~20 per page') and implying the use of sinceTime/untilTime for time bounds. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch quote-tweets (tweets that quote the given tweetId).' It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('quote-tweets'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_tweet_replies and get_tweet_retweeters by focusing on quote-tweets.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for finding commentary on a tweet, measuring reach beyond direct replies.' It also mentions supported features (time bounds, pagination). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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