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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds a concrete example of the output shape, the source ('Stratalize citation displacement composite'), and a per-call cost ($0.10 USDC), which are behavioral traits not available in structured form. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but the additional context is valuable.

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?

The description is efficient: it opens with usage, then describes the return, illustrates with a concrete example, and closes with source and cost. Every sentence adds operational information, but the long example makes it slightly less tight than ideal.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the necessary bases: what it returns, an example of the returned data, the data source, and pricing. It does not document edge cases or error handling, but these are less critical for a read-only lookup 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain vendor_name. It does so implicitly by referring to 'a target vendor' and using 'Salesforce' as an example, making clear the parameter is the incumbent vendor's name. It stops short of specifying exact formatting or canonical name requirements.

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 explicitly states it 'Returns vendors mentioned as replacements for a target vendor with switch narrative and mention counts,' which is a specific verb and resource. The Salesforce/HubSpot/Dynamics example clarifies the displacement concept and differentiates it from siblings like get_vendor_alternatives or get_competitive_landscape_synthesis.

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 opens with 'Use when tracking competitive threats to an incumbent vendor or identifying switching trends in a software category,' giving a clear trigger context. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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