telemost_stats_mentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: paid per call in USDC and the one-year history limit. It does not describe return format, but the safety profile is well covered by annotations, so this is a solid score above baseline.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and includes an alternative and cost without fluff. It is slightly denser than strictly necessary, but every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a read-only stats tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives purpose, alternatives, cost, and history scope. However, it lacks parameter semantics (especially period) and does not describe what the response looks like, leaving some gaps. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers 'channel' via '@channel', but it does not explain the 'period' parameter or its enum values (7d, 30d, 90d, all). The mention of 'Up to a full year of history' hints at the 'all' option but does not clarify the ranges, leaving period semantics 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 tracks mentions and citations of a given channel across other channels, who references it, and its share of voice. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with word tracker and post search for keyword tracking.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (mention tracking for a channel) and when not to use it ('For keyword or brand tracking across posts, use the word tracker or post search'). It also mentions paid-per-call cost and up to a year of history as contextual usage factors.

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