Get a mention digest

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description richly discloses non-obvious behavior: per-bucket caps at 5, empty groups remaining [], call succeeding on empty windows, rate limits per wallet vs IP, x402 payment-required responses after the trial, retry instructions with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and Idempotency-Key, and the note that x/reddit adapters are not guaranteed official search. It also transparently covers pricing and trial 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 description is longer than typical, but nearly every sentence carries load-bearing information about pricing, defaults, limits, alternatives, rate limits, and payment retry behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then branches into details, though the dense run-on structure could be better organized with short sections or bullet-like phrasing.

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 with billing, trial, rate-limiting, and payment-failure behavior, the description is fully complete: purpose, usage, parameter behavior, alternatives, error handling, and retry protocol are all covered. The output schema exists, so the absence of return-format detail is not a gap. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: limit sizes the gather before grouping and never changes price, calling with only query yields defaults of 7d and all platforms, and platforms/timeframe defaults are spelled out. It also clarifies the non-obvious interaction between limit and the fixed 5-item bucket cap, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Group cited mentions into praise, pain, news, reviews, and reply-worthy buckets.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_mentions and research_mentions, which are explicitly named as alternatives. The title 'Get a mention digest' reinforces the same purpose.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for a daily brief of those five groups.' It also names direct alternatives with the conditions that select them: list_mentions for flat exports, research_mentions for a full fused brief, get_health for liveness, and get_pricing for price/trial terms. It even advises preferring this tool over web_search for brand sentiment.

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