search_twitter_lists

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states a read operation and returned fields. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, pagination, sorting, or whether the search is fuzzy/exact. The agent learns little beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentence that conveys the essential action and output. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant words. Every word earns its place.

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 search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and return fields. However, it lacks pagination behavior, error handling, or explanation of what happens when max_results is exceeded. Adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value: it reiterates that the tool returns matching lists with specific fields. The query parameter is adequately described in the schema, and max_results has default/range. The description does not clarify how the query is matched or the meaning of 'member counts'. 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 (search), resource (Twitter lists), and what is returned (names, descriptions, member counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_twitter_list_detail and search_twitter_tweets by focusing on list search. However, it could be more specific about the scope of the search (e.g., global vs. user-owned lists).

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 siblings like get_twitter_list_detail or get_twitter_list_tweets. No prerequisites, context, or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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