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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers that this is a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the cap of 50 and the ordering 'newest first', and the default behavior of 'most recent' when month is omitted, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention potential rate limiting or the shape of the response (e.g., what fields each mention has), which might be needed for a comprehensive understanding. Given the annotation provides the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, two sentences, with no filler. The key facts (individual mentions, newest first, cap 50, month scoping) are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies the default and month usage. Every word earns its place.

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 has only two parameters with 100% schema coverage, and an output schema is absent, the description provides the necessary usage and behavior: what it returns, the cap, the ordering, and the month scoping. It does not describe the exact response fields or pagination, but since output schema is unspecified and the tool is simple, this is acceptable. The context is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%: both 'month' and 'ticker' have descriptions that already explain their format and meaning. The description adds the context that 'month' is for scoping to a calendar month, and omitting it gives most recent mentions, but this is partially redundant with the schema's description for 'month'. The ticker parameter is fully covered by the schema. The description adds some value by interpreting the parameters in the context of the tool's purpose, but does not go significantly beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns 'Individual mentions behind a company's signal strength', using specific verbs and resource. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'mentions' contrasted with 'recaps' or 'score'. The order and cap are also explicit.

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 explains that the tool defaults to the most recent mentions and that a month can be passed to scope to one calendar month, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over a sibling like 'get_company_recaps' or 'get_company_score', nor does it state any exclusions. Still, the usage is clear enough for most cases.

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