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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds useful context about the response format ('switch narrative and mention counts') and the data source ('Stratalize citation displacement composite'), going 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?

Three sentences: usage, return value, example plus source. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient operational context, including an example output. Minor gaps: no explicit note on output format beyond the example, but that's acceptable given the simplicity.

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?

The schema has only vendor_name with 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies that this refers to the 'target vendor' and gives a concrete example (Salesforce), making the parameter meaning clear.

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's function: 'Returns vendors mentioned as replacements for a target vendor with switch narrative and mention counts.' This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like get_vendor_alternatives and get_competitive_landscape_synthesis by focusing on displacement signals.

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?

Opens with 'Use when tracking competitive threats to an incumbent vendor or identifying switching trends' which explicitly defines the use case. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it stops short of a full 5.

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