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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld behavior, and the description adds useful context: results are drawn from live public sources, output ends with buyer shifts and entry wedges, and both markdown and structured JSON are returned. The optional pricing-benchmark flag is also framed as a speed trade-off. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-load the core action and scope, then enumerate outputs and return format. Every clause contributes meaning and there is no filler or repetition of schema boilerplate.

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 3-param tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers scope, method (live public sources), deliverable types, and the main option. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly; the only gap is explicit sibling routing, which is already captured under usage_guidelines.

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 already documents all three parameters. The description mostly restates the same semantics, such as skipping pricing queries for speed, without adding material parameter-level detail; no compensation is needed at this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb ('Map'), a specific resource (a competitive landscape for an industry or vertical), and enumerates concrete deliverables: incumbents vs disruptors, positioning quadrants, pricing, narrative themes, and entry wedges. This clearly differentiates it from sibling company- or product-level tools like get_competitor_battlecard or teardown_product_spec.

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 intended use is clear from the description, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor when not to use it. Selection is left to inference from the 'industry or vertical' scope rather than being explicitly routed.

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