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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, a hard page-size cap of 50, cursor-following semantics, and that `include` triggers loading of parent chains — details the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope/ordering, pagination contract, optional expansion), with the core action front-loaded. No filler or restated title text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of return-value context; it does cover the page size and the nextCursor contract, but says nothing about the shape or fields of an individual brand mention. For a five-parameter, one-required list tool the coverage is good but not exhaustive.

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 cursor, include, brand_id, project_id and response_id. The description only restates the include behavior at a high level ('load parent chains (response, brand, project, organization)'), adding marginal meaning over the schema's whitelist. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (brand mentions) scoped to a project, and adds ordering (newest first). This clearly separates it from the singular get-brand-mention-tool and from other list-* siblings such as list-citations-tool and list-responses-tool.

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?

Gives real procedural guidance — paginate via nextCursor, optionally pass include to expand parent chains — but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g. get-brand-mention-tool for a single mention, or list-citations-tool for sources). Usage is implied from the resource name rather than stated with conditions or exclusions.

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