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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 1.25× score boost, the 0-100 normalization side effect, the possibility of relative ranking drops, the pointer to rawOpportunityScore for verification, and the hiding behavior of 'ignored.' This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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, each carrying necessary information: the action, the scoring mechanics, and the hiding behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and there is 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?

For a mutating tool with a required enum and important side effects, the description is broadly complete: it explains consequences, offers a cross-check path, and defines the ignored state. It could slightly improve by explicitly naming the 'default' behavior, but this is a minor gap.

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 description clarifies the importance enum by explaining what 'important' and 'ignored' do, but it does not explicitly map companyId to the competitor or projectId to the containing project. With schema description coverage at only 25%, more semantic coverage of the ID parameters would have strengthened this.

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 precise verb and object: 'Mark a competitor important, default, or ignored.' It then explains what each state does, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinct from relatives like add_competitor_by_domain or get_competitor_detail.

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 effects of 'important' and 'ignored' give useful contextual guidance for when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as add_competitor_by_domain or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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