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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes that partial cards are marked and list missing signals, which is a key disclosure about output quality. It also includes pricing/call cost ($0.08/call) and payment method, which is extra transparency not in the annotations. No contradictions with readOnlyHint=false or other 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise behavioral note and pricing. Every word earns its place; there's no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the key facts an agent would need to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The description gives enough to understand the tool's role but omits which signals are included in the rollup. Since the tool has many sibling tools for specific signals, an agent might need this to decide if this rollup covers the desired signals. With no output schema, the partial-card behavior is mentioned but not detailed. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, and each parameter already has a rich description (e.g., domain example, baseline_key purpose, role_keywords maxItems, company_name_override heuristic warning). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning; it only gives high-level context. With high schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool produces 'one card per competitor summarising what changed across several signals in the past week.' It identifies a specific verb (summarising) and resource (competitor change rollup), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual signals. However, 'several signals' is vague and doesn't enumerate which signals, so it's not fully specific.

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?

Usage is implied: if you want a consolidated weekly summary of competitor changes, use this tool. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like individual signal tools, nor any exclusions. The openWorldHint annotation suggests it reaches outside, but the description doesn't discuss selection criteria or trade-offs.

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