get_mentions

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only, stateless, idempotent, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, and data privacy. This level of detail is exemplary and adds significant value.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Behavior, When to use, Args, Behavioral Transparency). However, the Args section is repetitive (all parameters described identically) and could be more concise. Overall, front-loaded with key info.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, usage guidance, parameters (despite weak descriptions), and behavioral transparency. With 4 parameters and an output schema, the description provides adequate context for most use cases, though parameter details could be richer.

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%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section provides generic descriptions (e.g., 'The competitor name to analyze or process') that add minimal meaning beyond the parameter names. No details on valid values, formats, or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get mentions for competitor' with a specific verb and resource. While not explicitly differentiating from siblings like get_competitor_info or get_competitor_comparison, the purpose is direct and unambiguous.

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?

Includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing context for when the tool is appropriate (structured analysis/classification) and cautioning against real-time decision-making without human review. However, the use cases could be more tailored to 'mentions' rather than generic analysis.

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