Read company mentions in personal timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it scans the recent activity page, matches company name as a mention link, and implies case-insensitive body matching (also present in schema). No contradictions with annotations, and the added mechanism aids correct mental modeling.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes value—purpose, mechanism, and use case. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 the tool's simplicity, two well-documented parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'personal posts' and 'company mention link'.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly (company_name with case-insensitivity, max_results as a cap). The description adds only marginal context ('mention link', 'employee-advocacy') beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List personal posts that tag the given company page') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like company_list_mentions by scoping to the personal timeline. It also states the underlying mechanism (mention link in body), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful to locate employee-advocacy posts for response/engagement'), implying a read/search scenario. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude cases, but the context is sufficient for a focused personal-timeline read.

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