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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that dates are real (never fabricated), returns { covered: false } for untracked companies, and implies read-only. Missing details on idempotency or rate limits, but adequately transparent for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Two sentences plus a brief note; every sentence conveys essential information. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then edge case. No wasted words.

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 should describe the return structure. It only mentions { covered: false } but not the shape of a successful response (e.g., array of moves with fields). It covers the fallback but leaves the main output partially unspecified.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema—it emphasizes 'domain or name' and explains that 'name' is used when no domain is given. This is helpful but not extensive.

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 returns a dated change-feed for one competitor, listing strategic shifts detected by IndustryLens, newest-first, with real analysis dates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_competitor_moves by focusing on changes and timeline.

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?

The description says 'Use when the user asks what changed, what's new, or wants a timeline of a competitor's moves' and mentions the fallback for untracked companies. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_competitor_moves, but the usage context is clear.

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