search_community_tweet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses pagination behavior through the cursor parameter and count limits (default 20, max 100), which are useful operational details. It stops short of mentioning read-only semantics, rate limits, or other potential constraints, but provides meaningful context 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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args list is a clean, structured reference with one line per parameter. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential details: scope, query, count limits, and pagination. No critical gaps remain, and the output format is presumably available in the output schema.

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 0%, yet the description explains each parameter: community_id, query, count (with default and max), and cursor (from previous response's next_cursor). This fully compensates for the sparse schema and adds clarity to parameter usage.

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 tweets within a Twitter Community (paginated).' It identifies the specific resource (tweets within a community) and distinguishes from siblings like search_tweets (general search) and get_community_tweets (likely without a query).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_tweets or get_community_tweets. The description simply states what it does without context on tool selection.

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