list_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) and filtering capabilities, but omits important behavioral details such as pagination (limit/offset behavior), error handling, data freshness, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for a listing tool with 5 parameters.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence with key details upfront. It is not verbose and each phrase adds value. However, it could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters explicitly).

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return format, pagination behavior, or what fields each mention contains. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the 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 description coverage is only 20% (only 'since' described). The description adds meaning for platform, since, and unread parameters, but fails to explain limit and offset. This partially compensates for the schema gaps but not completely.

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 clearly states the tool lists mentions from social listening, specifying sources (reddit, bluesky, youtube, etc.) and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_accounts or get_post by focusing on 'mentions' rather than posts or accounts.

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 mentions filtering options (platform, since, unread) indicating when to use these parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct users to alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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