Get Community Tweets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: an API key is required, one TweetAPI request per call, typically 1 unit cost, and each result carries a cost estimate. The pagination trait (one page per call, loop on completeness.nextCursor) is behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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-loads the core action and scope, then layers the alternative, safety, cost, and pagination notes — each sentence carries distinct information. The cost sentence is slightly dense ('one TweetAPI request per call, usually costing 1 unit; each result includes a cost estimate') but nothing is redundant.

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 paginated read endpoint with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: identifier formats, sort options, pagination loop, cost/auth expectations, and a sibling for the media-filtered variant. Return-value detail is correctly left to 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 coverage is 100%, with cursor, sortBy, communityId, and responseFormat all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the page/sortBy/cursor semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 posts in a community'), the accepted identifiers (community ID or link), and the ordering control (sortBy). It also names the sibling it is not — tweetapi_community_media for photo/video-only posts — so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Gives explicit routing for the media-only case ('Use tweetapi_community_media for only the posts with photos or videos') and clear pagination instructions via completeness.nextCursor. It does not distinguish against other community siblings such as community_search or community_details, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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