find_tool_mentions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Find', 'Returns') and specifies the output content (tool names, episode references, YouTube links). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple lookup tool this is adequate and adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, with no filler. Every phrase adds value, and the optional filter is mentioned succinctly.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what to expect: results include tool names, episodes, and timestamped YouTube links. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, with both limit and query fully documented, so the description does not need to compensate. The description only reiterates the optional keyword filter, adding no extra semantic detail beyond the schema examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('community tools and open-source projects discussed on Entra.Chat episodes') and explicitly states what it returns (tool names, episodes, timestamped links). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_entra_podcasts, which likely handle broader podcast search.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to locate tool mentions across episodes, with an optional keyword filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to select it over siblings.

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