mentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are scoped to mentions of the authenticated user and states the valid count range (1-60), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, auth requirements, or result ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one constraint worth surfacing. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple read tool this is nearly adequate, but the total absence of parameter documentation and any usage/routing guidance leaves real gaps for an agent picking among many sibling feeds.

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 0% across 4 parameters (page, count, max_id, since_id). The description only documents the count range and leaves page, max_id, and since_id entirely unexplained, so the documentation gap is largely uncompensated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read statuses') and scopes it to those mentioning the authenticated user, which distinguishes it from the timeline siblings (home_timeline, user_timeline, public_timeline). It never names a sibling explicitly, but the 'mention the authenticated user' qualifier is enough to route correctly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given the crowded set of timeline/search siblings, an agent has to infer that this is the mentions-only feed rather than home_timeline or search_public_timeline.

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