get_mentions

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

The description adds the key limitation that only Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Bluesky, and YouTube support comment reading, which is useful behavioral context. With no annotations provided, though, it omits return format, pagination, and how 'recent' is defined, so the agent is partly in the dark.

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?

One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the platform list appended as a clarifying qualifier. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers what is returned and from which platforms, but it leaves 'this account' and 'recent' undefined and provides no output shape. Given the absence of an output schema, a little more detail about the result form would make it complete.

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?

The input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's account scope is contextual rather than a parameter, and it needs no additional schema details.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('recent comments on this account's posts'), and names the five supported platforms. This operation is plainly distinct from sibling tools like list_connected_accounts and get_analytics_summary, so an agent can identify it by intent.

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?

It specifies the contextual trigger (wanting recent comments) and the platform limitation (only those supporting comments). However, it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative, leaving sibling selection entirely implicit.

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