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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as what the search covers, what it returns, or any limits.

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 text is short and contains no fluff, but it is fragmented and under-specified rather than appropriately structured. The two fragments do not form a clear, front-loaded explanation of the tool.

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 tool in a large sibling set, the description is missing essential information about what the tool does and when to use it. Although an output schema exists and annotations provide a title and safety hints, the description itself remains incomplete.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'query', with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the query should contain or how it is interpreted, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement: 'ChatGPT composer @-mentions.' It does not explicitly say that this tool searches mentions or what resource is being searched, leaving the agent to infer the action from the tool name.

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?

The fragment 'Others: find_notes.' points to an alternative sibling but gives no condition for choosing between them. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria.

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