mentions_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the output structure (mentions, ranks, citations, fan-out queries, brand entities) and disclosing pricing and cache behavior. No contradictions with 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 relatively concise for the amount of detail, with the purpose stated upfront. The list of modes is thorough, but the single-paragraph structure could be more scannable (e.g., bullet points). No redundant sentences.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains return values. It covers most operational aspects (modes, pricing, output contents). However, it does not fully detail all parameters or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for complex usage.

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 low (33%). The description only adds meaningful context for the 'mode' parameter, explaining each option. Parameters like providers, runs, and region receive no explanation, leaving the agent without guidance despite low schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool checks brand mentions across AI search surfaces, listing 8 specific modes with costs and behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (mentions_compare, mentions_discover, mentions_watch) by focusing on checking current mentions.

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 detailed guidance on when to use each mode (e.g., quick for cost efficiency, live modes for ground-truth citations) and includes pricing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, which would improve the score.

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