get_word_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the tool. Although the function appears to be a non-destructive query, this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that packs the core functionality, scope, and output type (mentions + views per period) without any redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose but leaves several gaps for an agent: no output schema or format details, no explanation of how parameters like start_date and end_date interact (e.g., whether both are required), and no mention of error conditions or edge cases. The tool is relatively simple, but the lack of additional context limits completeness.

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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it only rephrases the overall purpose. No parameter interactions, defaults beyond the schema, or output-shaping details are explained.

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's function: tracking keyword mentions across Telegram over time, including views per period. The verb 'track' and resource 'keyword mentions' are unambiguous, and the temporal scope is explicit.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the related sibling tools (e.g., get_word_mentions_by_channels, get_channel_mentions). While the global 'across Telegram' scope implies a difference, no explicit guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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