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

Adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: a latency warning ('Slow (LLM plus web)'), deduplication against already-saved competitors, and the crucial point that 'Nothing is saved' plus where to persist results. This is the non-obvious operational information an agent needs; only the return shape is left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then input source, dedup behavior, and cost warning in two tight fragments; every clause carries distinct information and the routing hint is last. No 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?

For a suggestion-generating tool with no output schema and a mutation-ambiguous annotation set, the description covers inputs, side effects (none), and follow-up. The one gap is that it never hints at the shape of the returned suggestions, which an agent must guess.

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 50%: 'site' is documented but 'productDescription' has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that a supplied description overrides the saved one, giving the parameter meaning beyond its name, though it never states the format/length expectations.

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 (researches/suggests), a specific resource (competitor domains for this business) and a scope qualifier (skipping competitors already saved). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_keyword_recommendations or add_my_keywords without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives the input-selection rule ('using the saved description unless one is given') and, importantly, tells the agent what to do next: 'pass the ones to keep to update_settings competitors.' It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a warning not to expect this tool to persist, but the save-path routing effectively covers that.

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