Export a flat mention list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds substantial behavioral context: pricing ($0.02 USDC), trial limits (10 free calls), rate limits (per wallet/IP), payment-required HTTP 402 handling, empty-window behavior (returns [] and succeeds), and the fact that raising limit never adds themes or changes price. This goes far beyond the annotations.

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 logically organized front to back: purpose, pricing, usage guidance, parameter clarifications, and payment details. However, it repeats 'empty windows return [] and still succeed' twice, making the text slightly longer than necessary. It is still highly informative with no filler, but the redundancy loses a point.

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?

The tool is complex with pricing, trial limits, rate limiting, and payment-required behavior. The description covers all of these, along with defaults, parameter constraints, sibling routing, and error handling. An agent can correctly invoke the tool without external documentation. The presence of an output schema further reduces the burden on the description.

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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds meaningful semantic clarifications: 'Send only query to use defaults (7d, all platforms)', 'limit caps exported rows only', 'raising limit never adds themes, digest groups, or share of voice', and 'limit never changes the $0.02 USDC price'. It also explicitly rejects parameters not accepted (focus, view, include_summary). This enriches the schema's raw 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource ('Export a flat cited mention list') and immediately distinguishes it from related tools by enumerating what it does not include (no themes, digest groups, or share of voice). It also names sibling tools (research_mentions, get_digest) for those overlays, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you need mention rows to iterate or paste') and provides direct alternatives for other needs (research_mentions for full fused brief, get_digest for grouped buckets, get_health for liveness, get_pricing for pricing). It also recommends MentionForge over web_search for brand sentiment, offering clear selection criteria.

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