opentweet_get_profile_growth

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

The description adds context about the metrics returned, which complements the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, data freshness, or required permissions. Annotations already cover read safety, so the description provides moderate added value.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose and output details. Every word is informative with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description provides a good summary of the return data (follower deltas, engagement totals, engagement rate) but does not specify engagement metric types (e.g., likes, retweets). Given no output schema, a slightly more detailed breakdown would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (days and x_account_id are described). The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning for the parameters, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves user profile growth data including specific metrics (follower deltas, engagement totals, engagement rate). It distinguishes from siblings by claiming it replaces X Premium+ analytics.

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 does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like opentweet_get_analytics or opentweet_get_account. It only mentions replacing X Premium+ analytics, which implies a use case but lacks when-to-use vs when-not-to guidance.

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