search_tweets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search for tweets using keywords' only states the basic operation. It does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, result ordering, pagination, or whether default result_type applies. The operation is likely read-only, but this is implied rather than stated, and no additional behavioral traits are revealed.

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 a single concise sentence that directly conveys the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. While it is somewhat sparse, it earns its place as an efficient high-level summary.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides little beyond the core action. It fails to mention return value expectations, pagination, default result_type behavior, or usage context versus sibling tools. The schema covers parameters, but the overall contextual picture is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'using keywords' adds no new meaning beyond the query parameter description already in the schema. It does not elaborate on count or result_type, but the schema fully documents them, so no deduction is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for tweets using keywords.' It clearly says what the tool does and is distinguishable from siblings like search_users and get_user_tweets by the resource and keyword-based approach. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings such as search_users, get_user_tweets, or get_tweet_by_id, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit cue is 'using keywords,' which suggests keyword-based search, but no clear context or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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