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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses ordering ('newest-first'), return structure ('existence of each shift plus a was→now summary'), a data-quality guarantee ('real analysis date, never a fabricated date'), and two edge cases ({ covered: false } for untracked companies and an empty list for covered ones with no moves). This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure for a read-only list 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by return details and edge cases. No filler; each sentence adds routing or behavioral 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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description explains the return shape, ordering, and edge cases well enough for correct invocation. Nothing critical is missing for a two-parameter read-only list tool.

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% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information (e.g., acceptable competitor formats or limit semantics) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks what a specific competitor has recently done or changed') and states the returned resource ('recent tracked strategic moves for one competitor'). It does not, however, distinguish this list view from sibling tools such as get_competitor_moves_diff or get_pricing_changes.

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 a clear when-to-use scenario tied to a user request about a specific competitor's recent changes. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., when diffing moves or when looking at pricing changes).

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