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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses privacy-safety, return format for untracked companies, and details about strategic moves (existence, was→now summary, real analysis date). Could add more on response structure, but good overall.

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 covering purpose, usage, and behavior. No redundant text; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists what the profile contains (firmographics, strategic moves, links) and handles edge cases. Slightly incomplete regarding exact response fields, but sufficient for agent invocation.

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 already describes both parameters (name and domain). Description adds meaningful guidance: 'Used when no domain is given' for name, 'Preferred — most precise' for domain, aiding parameter selection.

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 provides a competitive profile including firmographics, strategic moves, and links. It distinguishes itself by noting the { covered: false } case for untracked companies.

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?

Explicitly specifies use cases: 'when the user asks who competes with a company, what a competitor recently did, or for a competitive overview of a domain.' Implicitly differentiates from siblings like find_competitors by focusing on a single company profile.

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