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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the crucial behavioral fact that this tool performs no action itself and instead returns step-by-step UI instructions, plus the handoff to cotlet_browser_* in the Brand24 Cloud Browser. It loses a point for the ambiguous 'Brand24's official API: Yes' line, which leaves unclear whether an API path exists that would bypass the browser workflow.

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 behavioral disclosure is front-loaded and the workflow handoff lands early, which is good structure. But 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler and 'Brand24's official API: Yes' is an unexplained fragment that costs a sentence without adding usable meaning.

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 a zero-parameter guide tool with annotations covering safety, the core is present: what it returns and what to do afterward. What is missing is differentiation from the other guide-style sibling (cotlet_app_guide) and any note on prerequisites such as being signed in to Brand24 or having an active Cloud Browser session.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema with additionalProperties=false is fully self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 reveals that this is actually a guide-returning tool ('Returns how to do it in Brand24 step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself'), which is the opposite of what the name and title ('List mentions') imply. The verb 'List' is misleading for something that returns instructions rather than data, and the trailing fragment 'Brand24's official API: Yes' is cryptic about what it is actually telling the agent.

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 does tell the agent what to do next ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Brand24 Cloud Browser'), which is genuine workflow guidance. However, it never says when to use this versus a direct browser call or versus nearby siblings like cotlet_app_guide or brand24_list_ai_events, and 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is channel marketing rather than selection guidance.

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