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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by naming the required server mode and OAuth scope, but says nothing about idempotency, rate limits, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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?

Prerequisites are covered, but with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the payload shape and the response. Adequate for a simple publish action but with clear gaps.

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 0% for the single required 'text' parameter, and the description never mentions it. No content format, mention/link handling, or length constraints are conveyed beyond the bare minLength/maxLength in 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Publish a new X post'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings (x_get_post, x_search_posts). It does not explicitly contrast with x_reply_post, the other write sibling, so it stops 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?

It states prerequisites (X_MCP_MODE=read-write, tweet.write scope), which implies context of use, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus x_reply_post or when-not guidance. Useful but inferential rather than directive.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuine security-relevant disclosure: 'Does not expose tokens.' That is useful context beyond the annotation. It does not describe return contents, but the token caveat is the meaningful addition.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the resource identity front-loaded and the security caveat in the second clause. Nothing extraneous.

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 a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only missing piece is a hint about what profile fields come back, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or obscure.

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 ('Get the local X account profile') and scopes it to the account selected for this installation. It is largely distinguishable from siblings, though the boundary with x_get_me is not spelled out in the description itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus x_get_me or x_get_user, which is the most likely confusion given the near-identical resource. The agent has to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the 'authenticated' scoping, which implies auth is required and no user id is passed. It says nothing about what identity fields come back or what happens if the token is invalid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries information.

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 a parameterless read with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly sufficient, but the ambiguity against x_get_user and x_get_active_account is unresolved and no return-shape hint is given (there is no output schema).

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the user is derived from the authenticated session rather than passed in.

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 ('get the authenticated X user'), which is meaningful against siblings like x_get_user and x_get_active_account. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from those overlapping siblings, so the reader must infer the difference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus x_get_user or x_get_active_account, both of which plausibly return user data. The agent is left to infer the distinction from the word 'authenticated' alone.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read, so the description's remaining burden is lower. It adds little beyond the annotation: no mention of auth requirements, deleted/protected post behavior, or rate limits. A 3 reflects that annotations carry the safety profile while the description adds almost nothing.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Appropriate for a simple lookup tool.

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 a basic read-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate. Missing are edge-case behavior, format of the ID, and sibling differentiation, leaving some gaps for an agent choosing among post-related tools.

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?

There is only one parameter, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 0% and the description only restates 'by ID', but with a single obvious parameter the description is adequate.

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: retrieving a single X post by ID. It is clear on its own, but it offers no distinction from siblings like x_search_posts or x_get_user_posts, which also return post 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus x_search_posts or x_get_user_posts. The word 'single' implies an exact-ID lookup, but this is not explicit and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing further: no failure behavior for unknown usernames, no note on what user data is returned, no authentication context. It restates the operation rather than disclosing behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup, though it is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful.

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 a simple one-param read with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. Still missing is any signal about return content or how to distinguish this from x_get_me and x_get_active_account.

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%, including the useful 'Username without @' constraint, so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Get an X user by username'), so its function is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like x_get_me or x_get_active_account, leaving the agent to infer which retrieval path applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings that also return users (x_get_me, x_get_active_account), the definition provides no basis for choosing between them.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral trait, that only 'recent' posts are returned (not full history), but it never defines that window or says anything about pagination or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 a low-complexity two-parameter tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks what 'recent' means, how many posts come back, whether the list is paginated, and what fields are returned. The definition is too thin to call correctly with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only restates that userId is an X user ID. maxResults is entirely unaddressed in the description; the schema supplies default/min/max but no meaning for the value or how results are paged.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get recent posts authored by an X user ID'), so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like x_search_posts or x_get_post, but the by-user scoping is still clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. x_search_posts for query-based retrieval, x_get_post for a single post), and no prerequisites such as requiring a user ID from x_get_user or x_get_me.

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

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds the auth/config requirement (mode and scope), which is genuine value beyond the annotations. It omits rate limits, whether the reply threads to the parent, and error/permission failure behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. Sized appropriately for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 say what comes back, and it doesn't. Combined with undocumented parameters and no sibling differentiation, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for a write 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?

Two required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone explains nothing about 'text' (reply body) or 'postId' (target post). The description mentions replying to 'a post' but does not map either parameter or note the 25000-char limit implied by 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Reply to an X post'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling x_create_post (a reply is a kind of post creation), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a real precondition (X_MCP_MODE=read-write and tweet.write scope), which is useful operational guidance. It says nothing about when to prefer this over x_create_post or x_get_post, and no exclusions are stated, so usage is only partially covered.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — results are limited to 'recent' posts, not the full archive — but says nothing about rate limits, authentication requirements, result volume, or how results are ordered, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a search tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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, 0% parameter description coverage, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description would need to carry most of the load. Instead it omits the query syntax details, the meaning of maxResults, and any sense of the returned result shape, so an agent cannot call this confidently without outside knowledge.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description nods at 'official X query syntax' for the query parameter but gives no operators, examples, or format rules, and it says nothing at all about maxResults (its default of 10, its 10-100 range, or how it interacts with the query).

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 ('recent X posts'), which is clear on its face. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as x_get_user_posts or x_get_post, which also return posts, so the agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions or exclusions, and no reference to the sibling tools that also retrieve posts. The word 'recent' implies a temporal scope but the description never tells the agent when search is preferable to x_get_user_posts or x_get_post.

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