Get Hidden Replies

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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, but the description adds auth requirements (TweetAPI key), per-call cost and the presence of a cost estimate in results, one-request-per-call semantics, and the empty-page behavior. It also makes pagination state explicit, which the annotations say nothing about.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph with no wasted clauses: purpose, public-visibility note, empty-result edge case, safety, auth/cost, then pagination. Each sentence contributes something an agent needs before calling.

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?

The tool has an output schema and rich annotations, and the description still covers the gaps those don't: credentials, cost model, one-page semantics, and the empty-result case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description largely restates schema content (tweetId accepts a link; cursor comes from completeness.nextCursor). It adds modest value by framing the cursor as the continuation loop against the output field, but says nothing about responseFormat, which the schema documents instead.

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 the replies that a post's author has hidden') plus the accepted identifier forms (post ID or post link). That is precise enough to separate it from sibling reply-oriented tools such as tweetapi_tweet_details, tweetapi_tweet_quotes, and tweetapi_user_tweets_and_replies without opening a 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 scope ('hidden replies are public on X') and the empty-result condition make the intended use clear, and the pagination sentence tells the agent exactly how to continue. It stops short of naming a sibling to use for non-hidden replies, which is the main remaining gap.

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