get_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 describes the return content but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a data-fetch tool without annotation support.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the topic, the second lists return types. Both sentences are informative with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lists return categories but does not explain parameter roles, expected input formats, or output structure. It lacks the context needed to invoke the tool correctly beyond basic intent.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'per-keyword' counts, hinting that keyword_tags or keyword_names are relevant, but it does not explain site_global_key, search_engine, target_date, or how keywords are specified. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as returning brand mentions and citations in AI responses, specifying the types of data (counts, context sentences, URLs, client vs competitor breakdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_site_citations by focusing on AI responses, though it could be more explicit about being a 'get' operation.

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 implied context (for AI response mentions) but gives no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons. There is no mention of when to choose this over get_keyword_citations or other sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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