Get Tweet Metrics

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

The description repeats what annotations already declare ('Read-only', non-destructive) but does add genuinely new behavioral facts: an API key is required, one TweetAPI request is made per call, and each call usually costs 1 unit with a cost estimate returned. It does not explain what a 'unit' is or what happens on invalid/private/deleted posts, so the disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the scoping constraint and the alternative tool. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

Auth, cost, request count, input flexibility, and sibling routing are all covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The only soft spot is the unexplained cost unit and no note on failure modes for deleted or protected posts.

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% and the schema already documents the single tweetId parameter including the link format (https://x.com/jack/status/20). The description's 'Accepts a post ID or post link' merely restates the schema, adding no new syntax or edge-case meaning.

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 only the engagement counts ... for one tweet') and enumerates exactly which counts are returned (likes, retweets, replies, quotes, bookmarks, views). It also scopes the tool negatively ('without the conversation'), which separates it from the heavier tweet-details siblings.

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 the agent to the alternative: 'Use tweetapi_tweet_details for the full tweet.' What is missing is guidance against the other adjacent siblings (tweetapi_tweet_quotes, tweetapi_tweet_retweets, tweetapi_tweet_hidden_replies), which also take a post ID and could be confused with this one.

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