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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it states the model-training basis, estimates, missing recent entrants, pay-per-call billing, and the error behavior for missing payment headers. This is exceptionally clear about operational behavior and failure modes.

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 information-dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, exclusion, data caveats, and payment behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action, and no words are wasted.

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 purpose, alternatives, limitations, and payment. The only notable gap is that neither schema nor description explicitly says whether the 'query' parameter is required or what happens if omitted; the parameter is marked optional only by the schema's lack of a required list. For most uses this is clear enough, but a brief note would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well described. The description adds only a small note on 'context' (optional, for framing gaps) which slightly reinforces but does not significantly extend the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map a market's competitors' and lists the output aspects (names, strengths, weaknesses, positioning). It also distinguishes itself from research-competitor-pricing by explicitly excluding pricing, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives explicit usage context ('Use for landscape and positioning questions') and an exclusion with the sibling alternative ('Pricing is not covered; for plan tiers and price comparison use research-competitor-pricing'). It also sets expectations about data source and recency, which helps an agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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