Search Communities

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses the auth requirement (TweetAPI API key), the per-call request and unit cost, and that results carry a cost estimate. It also spells out the pagination contract, including the exact field to pass back (completeness.nextCursor).

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by routing, cost, and pagination details. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

Complete for a 2-parameter, read-only search with an output schema: the description covers scope, aliases, cost, and pagination rather than restating return fields. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is left out.

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, but the description adds practical meaning by tying cursor to completeness.nextCursor in the previous result and stating that it should be omitted on the first call. That goes slightly beyond the schema text, which is nearly identical but less explicit about the omit case.

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 ('Search X communities by keyword') plus the scope of a single page. It explicitly separates itself from tweetapi_search (posts and accounts), so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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?

The description names the follow-up tools (tweetapi_community_details, tweetapi_community_tweets) and gives a clear alternative for a different resource type (tweetapi_search). What is missing is any when-not-to-use condition or guidance on query breadth, so it stops just short of a full routing rule.

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