Get Tweet Quotes

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world) by disclosing the auth requirement (TweetAPI API key), the request/cost model ('one TweetAPI request per call, usually costing 1 unit'), that results carry a cost estimate, and the exact pagination mechanism. These are the operational facts an agent needs before spending quota.

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 purpose before the alternatives, then safety/cost, then pagination. No sentence restates the name or title, and each carries a distinct operational fact.

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 with an output schema and rich annotations, nothing essential is missing: identity input forms, sibling routing, cost/quota implications, and the cursor loop are all covered, and return-shape explanation is rightly delegated 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the accepted post-ID-or-link forms and the full-vs-compact responseFormat enum. The description reinforces cursor usage by pointing at 'this result's completeness.nextCursor,' which is mild added value, but it says nothing about responseFormat or the compact field-dropping tradeoff. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 quote posts of a post (posts that quote it), by post ID or post link' — and immediately disambiguates from the two nearest siblings that return adjacent relationship types. An agent can distinguish this from retweets and details without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use tweetapi_tweet_retweets for plain reposts and tweetapi_tweet_details for replies,' which names the alternatives and the condition selecting each. It also gives the continuation condition — call again with the cursor when the page is exhausted.

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