opentweet_get_tweet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's consistency with that is fine. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes 'full details' beyond the 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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is informative and 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?

Given the simple nature of a retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but vague. 'Full details' is not elaborated, and there is no mention of return values or error conditions.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'id' with a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (get), the resource (full details of a specific tweet), and the means (by ID). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like opentweet_list_tweets (listing) and opentweet_create_tweet (creation).

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 tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not explain when to prefer this over opentweet_list_tweets for retrieving a single tweet, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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