mentions_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior with potentially incomplete results. The description adds that output is '~50 candidate queries' and spans specific intents, slightly enhancing transparency.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose ('suggest queries to track for a given brand') and add a detail about output volume and intent types. No extra or redundant information.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits details on optional parameters and output structure, forcing the agent to guess or rely on tool name.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must explain all parameters. It only hints at 'given brand' for the required parameter. Industry and count parameters are not described, leaving their roles ambiguous.

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 suggests queries to track for a brand and specifies the output includes ~50 candidates across informational, commercial, and comparison intents. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like mentions_check or mentions_compare, but the name and verb 'discover' imply its unique role.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (mentions_check, mentions_compare, mentions_watch). The description does not mention alternatives or constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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