Get tweets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: results preserve request order, and missing IDs mean deleted, opted-out, or unarchived rather than a transient failure. That last point is genuinely actionable and prevents pointless retries. It does not mention error behavior for malformed refs or any rate limits.

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 tightly packed sentences: the retrieval contract first, then the failure interpretation. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant constraint is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at the return shape; it covers ordering and, via the schema-covered format flag, level of detail. It omits what happens on partial failure (some IDs found, some not) and whether results preserve a distinct indicator for missing refs, which an agent calling with mixed batches would want.

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% — refs and the compact/full enum are fully documented in the schema itself, including what compact trims. The description's '1–100' restates the schema's minItems/maxItems, and 'returned in request order' concerns output rather than parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch tweets) plus the two accepted identifier forms (numeric ID or x.com/twitter.com status URL) and the batch bound of 1–100. This implicitly separates it from ca_search_tweets (lookup-by-reference vs. query), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'by ID or status URL' framing makes the usage context clear: you must already know which tweets you want. It also tells the agent how to interpret an absent result, which guides follow-up behavior. It stops short of explicitly routing keyword/author queries to ca_search_tweets or ca_account_tweets.

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