ghl_social_get_twitter_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool is deprecated and no longer supported (X/Twitter unsupported as of Dec 2024), which is beyond what annotations provide. This is valuable for the agent to avoid using the tool.

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 not concise due to the inclusion of a large styled HTML warning and endpoint details. The key information (deprecation and purpose) is front-loaded, but the HTML adds unnecessary verbosity for an agent. Adequate but could be cleaner.

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 no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or additional context beyond the deprecation. For a deprecated tool, the deprecation notice is essential, but overall completeness is average. The annotations mitigate some missing context.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Get Twitter profile', indicating the action and resource. However, the prominent deprecation warning may cause confusion about whether the tool should still be used. It distinguishes from siblings by name, but the deprecation is a significant modifier.

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 includes a deprecation notice but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions 'prefer the documented replacement if one exists' but does not name any replacement. No explicit guidance on usage context.

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