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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the description earns credit for clarifying that output is provisional suggestions and no tracking is created until confirmation — a material behavioral fact. It does not cover what happens on repeat calls or what the evidence payload looks like.

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 short sentences, purpose first, then the confirmation caveat, then the scoping rule. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts come earliest.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, persistence semantics, and workspace scoping. The only gap is the return shape, which matters slightly more here because there is no 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the spc_ pattern and override semantics. The description's Space sentence largely restates the schema rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Build competitor suggestions') plus the evidence sources it draws from (auction data, uploads, search terms). The line 'Nothing is tracked until someone confirms it' implicitly separates it from track_competitor, but no sibling is named outright.

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 explicit operational context for Space scoping and names set_active_space as the alternative, with the space_id override as the one-call escape hatch. It does not, however, say when to reach for this versus find_competitor_library_accounts, check_competitor_similarity, or list_competitors.

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