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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds substantive behavior: it deletes both the unstarred competitor record and every stored lookup across all markets, is effectively a no-op when nothing is stored, and refuses tracked domains. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations can't convey.

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?

Effects are front-loaded, followed by reversibility, refusal conditions, and the no-op case, then a Related line. Each sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described; the description instead covers scope, side effects, refusal cases, and the empty-state case. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with an example (example.com), so the baseline is 3; the description adds qualification that the domain must be untracked and not a site you own, which narrows valid input meaningfully.

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 precise verb+resource (remove an untracked domain's competitor lookup) plus scope ("in every market") and the exact records deleted. It clearly distinguishes itself from untrack_competitor and the delete_*/list_* siblings by naming what it does not touch (tracked competitors, own sites).

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?

Explicit when-not conditions: refuses a tracked competitor (untrack first) and refuses your own sites, and explains that re-looking-up or re-tracking starts fresh. It also names related tools (list_competitors, untrack_competitor), so the agent knows the routing alternatives.

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