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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: ordering (newest first), status meanings (draft, measuring, ready, failed) and what each implies, rescan_cadence semantics, and the explicit lack of places in the list. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 bit lengthy but well-structured: core purpose first, then conceptual detail, status enumerations, and a pointer to the sibling tool. Each sentence adds value and no information is wasted. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though slightly dense.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the list contains (statuses, rescan_cadence, order), clarifies that places are not included and how to obtain them, and gives status meanings. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret results without needing an output schema.

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%; the parameter project_id is fully described in the schema (including that omitting it means every project). The description only repeats 'Scope to one project with project_id' and adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the competitor scans of an account, newest first, and explains what a competitor scan is (a basket of companies for a market/engine). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_competitor_scan by noting the list does not include the places, which the 'fiche' carries. This gives a precise verb+resource and differentiates from a sibling tool.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Without the list of places... call get_competitor_scan for one scan' directly tells the agent when to use the alternative. Also instructs to scope with project_id, and omitting it targets every project. Clear when-to-use and when-to-use-another conditions are present.

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