Track mentions of a brand or product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful output details—permalinks and community breakdown—but does not disclose behaviors like sorting, relevance, or account requirements, which would go beyond the annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: what it finds, what it returns, and when to use it. The information is front-loaded and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return values (posts, permalinks, community breakdown). The 4 parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the description provides enough context for correct tool selection and invocation. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but these are not essential for basic use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds slight context by mapping 'term' to 'brand, product, or phrase' and 'subreddits' to 'communities', but this is marginal beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource (brand, product, or phrase mentions), and specifies the return value: matching posts with permalinks and a community breakdown. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, but the community breakdown distinguishes it from generic search tools like search_reddit.

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 phrase 'before deciding which threads to read in full' provides clear contextual guidance, implying a workflow of using this tool to survey mentions first, then reading full threads. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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