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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those fields: results are newest first, each carries sentiment, opportunity mentions include opportunity/opportunityWhy/draftReply, and the draft reply must be shown to the user and approved before posting.

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 front-loaded with scope and source, then adds output details and workflow guidance efficiently. It is slightly dense, but every sentence contributes useful 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?

There is no output schema, and the description explains some important return fields but not the full result shape or pagination behavior. It also omits guidance on the three input parameters, leaving the agent to infer how to filter and limit mentions.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain how to use limit, sentiment, or onlyUnread as input filters. In fact, 'Each carries its sentiment' refers to an output field and could be confused with the sentiment filter parameter.

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 specific verb+resource: mentions from saved searches on X and in news, excluding the organization's own posts. It explicitly contrasts this with comments on its own content, which live in the inbox, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without opening the schema.

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 says when to use this tool and when not to: not for comments on the brand's own content, which belong in the inbox. It also names the downstream workflow for opportunity mentions, including approval before using reply_to_mention.

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