Agent Twitter Client MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching by keyword but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, result format, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Search for tweets by keyword' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search tool with potential complexity (e.g., result formatting, limits), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, rate limits, return values, or error handling, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it effectively. It's minimal but insufficient for full understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (query, count, searchMode). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying keyword-based search, which aligns with the 'query' parameter but doesn't provide extra context like syntax examples or search scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search for') and target resource ('tweets'), with the specific mechanism ('by keyword'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tweet_by_id' (specific ID lookup) and 'get_user_tweets' (user-specific retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search-like siblings (none exist in the list), so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for user-specific tweets), or compare to siblings like 'get_user_tweets' for user-focused retrieval. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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