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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description discloses the 1.25x boost, top-10 cluster condition, post-normalization effect on relative rankings, the cross-check via get_opportunity_detail.rawOpportunityScore, and what ignored does to surfaces and the editorial-score pipeline. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure.

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 with no filler: the first states the operation, the second covers the nontrivial scoring side effect and recovery path, and the third defines the ignored state. Valuable information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating tool with a destructiveHint, the description covers the side effects and even tells the agent how to verify raw scores. It is slightly incomplete only in that it does not describe the response or the neutral 'default' behavior, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enriches 'importance' by explaining important and ignored, but it does not define 'default' or explicitly map companyId/projectId to the competitor and project. The parameter names and UUID formats carry the remaining meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Mark a competitor important, default, or ignored,' and then details the meaningful consequences of each state. This clearly distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like list_competitors and get_competitor_detail, and from add_competitor_by_domain.

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 described action ('mark a competitor...') makes the use case clear, and the scoring consequences indicate why an agent would choose this over read/list tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for a sibling-aware agent.

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