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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds useful scope and payload context — results are scoped to the signed-in brand and report competitor ownership and answer volatility. However, it says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the usage trigger. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers scope and returned fields. It is slightly thin on volume/ordering behavior and on how it relates to my_question_history, which an agent might need to choose correctly between the two.

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?

There is one optional boolean parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully explains only_losing. The description's phrase 'what they are losing' loosely hints at that filter but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond 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?

States a specific resource (every buying question tracked for the signed-in brand) plus the three things returned: whether the brand is named, who wins instead, and how volatile the answer is. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like my_brand or my_visibility, though it never contrasts itself with the closely related my_question_history.

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 an explicit trigger: use when the user asks what they are losing or which questions are worth attacking. That is a clear context, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer my_question_history or my_actions instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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