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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real operational context: cursor pagination, a hard cap of 100 results, and a privacy guarantee ('memory vault stays private'). It does not describe the return shape, but the extras are meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core capability and the pagination limit are front-loaded. The mention guidance follows logically. Slightly more prose than strictly necessary but each sentence carries information.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mention and pagination mechanics but leaves query, metadata, channel_id, and especially the private connection credential unexplained. An agent can invoke the basic case but lacks enough to handle credentials or the metadata mode confidently.

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 only 38% across 8 params. The description compensates partially by explaining mentioned (with its true/false semantics), cursor pagination (after/before), and the 100-result limit. It says nothing about query, metadata, channel_id, or the security-sensitive connection parameter, so half the surface remains undocumented.

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 states a verb ('Retrieve') plus two resources merged together: 'channel context' and 'search text and metadata'. It broadly tells an agent what the tool does, but the dual purpose is muddled and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tincan_mentions_search, which appears to cover the same mention-searching ground.

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?

It gives a concrete usage rule for one flag: 'Use mentioned=true for your mentions; omit it when pulling the full conversation around a mention.' That is genuine when-to-use guidance, but it offers no alternatives (e.g. tincan_mentions_search) and no exclusions or prerequisites for the other modes.

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