get_quote_tweets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description lacks crucial context about parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from similar tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no additional semantic information about tweet_id format, count limitations, cursor usage, or default values. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving all parameters semantically undefined.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('tweets that quote a specific tweet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_retweets or get_replies by specifying 'quote' tweets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those alternatives in the text.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_retweets, get_replies, or search_twitter. It states what it does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations compared to sibling tools.

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