mentions_compare

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds little beyond 'compute the delta.' It fails to disclose the input contradiction (OR vs AND) or any other behavioral traits.

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 with no fluff, but the first sentence is misleading regarding input combination, reducing its value.

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?

No output schema, no mention of return format, pagination, or error handling. The description is too sparse given the tool's complexity and parameter count.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only vaguely mentions 'two queries OR two brands' but does not cover the required combination, optional parameters, or the mode enum.

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 states it computes delta between two queries or two brands, which is a specific purpose. However, the required fields (query_a and brand_a) suggest both are needed, contradicting the 'OR' implication. This reduces clarity.

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?

Mentions 'competitor analysis' as a use case but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like mentions_check, mentions_discover, or mentions_watch.

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