Search tweets

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds the all-words-must-appear search semantics and the offset pagination cap. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, result ordering, or response shape, and there is no output schema.

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 three short sentences with no wasted wording. Purpose, filters, and pagination are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For an 8-parameter search tool, it covers the core purpose, filter dimensions, and pagination constraints, while annotations and schema handle safety and parameter details. It omits result-shape and ordering details, but the schema's format description partly covers what results look like.

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 high (88%) and already documents q, limit, dates, format, and filters. The description reinforces the search/filter/pagination categories and supplies useful context for the otherwise undocumented offset parameter ('pages with offset, max 5,000').

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 (search) and resource (tweets/archive) plus the key full-text constraint that every word must appear. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as ca_account_tweets or ca_tweets_window, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Mentions filtering by author, replied-to user, and date, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternative sibling tools.

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