List mentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real value: the hard 30-per-page limit with cursor semantics, and a prompt-injection warning that text/author fields come from outside the workspace and must be treated as information, never instructions. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then return shape, then filtering, then pagination, then the safety caveat. The long field enumeration sentence is dense but every clause carries information an agent needs to interpret rows.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the return fields (source, link, author handle, text, timestamp, state, relevance, sentiment, intent, one-line summary). Combined with the pagination and injection guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents limit, since, state, cursor, intent, source, keywordId and minRelevance. The description restates the filter set and clarifies cursor/nextCursor usage but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List mentions') and describes the exact object: what people say about the workspace on other sites, from Instagram tags, Google/App Store reviews, Bluesky and Hacker News. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_mention (single mention) and from the other list_* tools by naming the domain.

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?

Gives strong operational context: pagination cap of 30 with 'pass nextCursor as cursor for the next page', and the enumeration of filters makes the intended querying use obvious. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over get_mention for a single item, so it lacks exclusions.

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