ch_company_mentions

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

The annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that results include a text snippet and a role hint, and that the focus is on mentions in gazette publications about other companies. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core scope ('Gazette publications about OTHER companies that name this one') and then gives a practical use case. Every phrase 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?

For a read-only tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, result content (snippet and role hint), and a use case. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the limit parameter description in the schema already covers newest-first ordering. Sibling differentiation is clear from the 'OTHER companies' phrasing.

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 uid and limit parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full meaning of both parameters.

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 the verb and resource: it lists gazette publications about OTHER companies that name this one, with text snippet and role hint. It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'OTHER companies' and provides a concrete use case (showing which companies a fiduciary or audit firm works for), making it distinct from ch_company_profile or ch_company_history.

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 description provides clear context and a specific use case ('Shows which companies a fiduciary or audit firm works for'), implying when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'OTHER companies' scope is enough to differentiate it from siblings.

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