get_twitter_user_profile

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the return data fields (name, bio, follower count, etc.) but does not disclose behaviors like error handling (e.g., if username doesn't exist), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The 'and more' is vague.

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 sentence that fully conveys the purpose and output. No wasted words; appropriately sized for a simple 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 straightforward tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. However, it could be more precise about the full list of returned attributes or error scenarios, but it's adequate.

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% for the single parameter 'username', and the description simply restates it as 'Twitter username (without @)'. No additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool name and description provide a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Twitter/X user's profile'), and it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_twitter_user_tweets or get_twitter_followers by focusing on the profile 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?

The description implies using this tool to retrieve a user's profile by username, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like search_twitter_users (for searching) or get_twitter_user_about (which might have different scope). No when-not or alternative recommendations.

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