Receipt for a tweet

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the receipt fields, the SHA-256 input format, and that request_id is included as provenance. It does not cover error behavior or batch semantics, but for a read-only receipt generator this is substantial context.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the receipt contents. Every clause carries useful information, including the hash format and provenance field, with no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by enumerating the receipt fields and hash provenance. The single input parameter is fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety and openness, so an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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%: the single refs parameter is documented in the schema as 'Tweet IDs or status URLs', and the description refers to the same input as 'tweets'. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific transformation: turning tweets into dated proof records, and enumerates the receipt contents (expanded links, timestamp, permalink, author, SHA-256 hash). This distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like ca_get_tweets because the output is a proof record, not just tweet data.

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 intended use is implied by 'Turn tweets into dated proof records', but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over ca_get_tweets or other siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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