get_tweet_retweeters

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination via cursor with ~100 per page and states it returns user profiles with metadata. Could mention if authentication is needed or data freshness, but overall adequate.

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 compact with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (user profiles with metadata) and pagination behavior. Could be slightly more specific about the metadata fields, but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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% with clear descriptions for tweetId and cursor. The description adds context by specifying page size (~100 per page) and clarifying the scope (simple retweets not quotes), which adds value beyond the schema.

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 fetches retweeters for a specific tweet, distinguishing it from quote-tweets and mentioning it returns user profiles with metadata. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling get_tweet_quotes.

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 explicitly tells when not to use it (quote-tweets) and directs to get_tweet_quotes as alternative. It implies usage for simple retweets, but does not provide guidance on when to use over other siblings like get_tweet_replies.

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