Get Community Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds material context beyond them: API-key requirement, one request per call, typical cost of 1 unit, and a per-result cost estimate. It also explains the exact pagination contract via completeness.nextCursor, so the agent knows both the cost model and how to resume.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the disambiguation, then cost and pagination mechanics. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and it instead spends its words on auth, cost, and cursor-based resumption — exactly the gaps structured fields do not fill. Nothing needed to invoke and continue correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds procedural meaning by tying the cursor parameter to the previous result's completeness.nextCursor and reinforcing that communityId accepts either a numeric ID or a link. The responseFormat enum is left entirely to the schema, which caps it at 4.

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 ('Fetch one page of a community's members') plus the accepted identifier forms (community ID or link). It also distinguishes itself from tweetapi_community_details by assigning member-count lookups to that sibling, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes member-count queries to tweetapi_community_details and gives concrete continuation instructions for pagination. It does not address the nearest ambiguous sibling, tweetapi_list_members (list vs community members), leaving that distinction to naming inference, which keeps it below a 5.

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