Get Tweet Details By IDs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it names the exact place incomplete results surface (completeness.notReturned), states the auth requirement (TweetAPI API key), and gives request/cost behavior (one request per call, ~1 unit, per-result cost estimate). That is precisely the operational detail structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and limit before caveats. The only dead weight is 'Read-only.', which merely restates readOnlyHint and earns no new information for the agent.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present: input forms, batch ceiling, what is excluded, how partial results are reported, and the cost/auth profile.

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% and both parameters are documented there in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the ID-or-link input and the 200 cap and says nothing about the responseFormat trade-off, which the schema already explains.

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 with scope: fetch details for up to 200 tweets by post ID or post link. The batching limit implicitly separates it from the singular tweetapi_tweet_details, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 batch size and 'No replies are included' exclusion imply the use case (bulk hydrate known IDs, not conversation retrieval), but the description never says when to prefer tweetapi_tweet_details or tweetapi_search, nor states prerequisites for obtaining the IDs.

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