User Tweets

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the ~100-most-popular (non-chronological) return behavior, enumerates the returned fields, flags that the call consumes paid API credits, requires confirm=true, and explicitly reconciles the readOnlyHint=false annotation by noting read-like POSTs do not publish to social platforms. That last point is exactly the context an agent needs to trust the tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the important return caveat, then supporting details. The field enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema; nothing reads as filler, though the sentence could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields and the popularity caveat. Combined with the credit/confirm warning and the read-only clarification, an agent has everything needed to call this successfully.

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 already documents trim, handle, account, and confirm; baseline is 3. The description restates the trim effect ('lighter response') and the confirm requirement, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, and never mentions the account parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches tweets from a Twitter user's profile by handle.' This is clearly distinct in scope from twitter_profile (profile info), twitter_tweet_details (a single tweet), and twitter_community_tweets (community timelines), though the description never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope, and the caveat that only ~100 most-popular tweets are returned (not chronological/latest) is a valuable context signal for deciding whether this tool fits a request. However, no alternatives or explicit when/when-not conditions are stated.

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