Get Community Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still earns credit for operational context the annotations do not carry: an API key is required, one request per call, and roughly 1 unit with a cost estimate returned per result. It stops short of describing throttling, error behavior, or what happens with an invalid or private community ID, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: what it returns first, sibling routing second, cost and auth third. Information is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct facts.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still names the key fields and mentions the cost estimate in each result. Auth requirement, request cost, and sibling alternatives round out everything an agent needs before calling this single-parameter read tool.

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% and the single communityId parameter already documents both the numeric ID and the link form, so the description adds no syntax beyond the schema. The phrase 'by community ID or community link' mirrors what the schema states; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one community's details') and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, member count, settings), plus the accepted identifier forms. It explicitly names the sibling tools for posts and members, so the agent can separate it from tweetapi_community_tweets and tweetapi_community_members without opening any schema.

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?

States the selection condition directly: use this for the community's own details, use tweetapi_community_tweets for posts and tweetapi_community_members for members. That is explicit alternative routing for the most likely confusion set, leaving little to infer.

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