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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape ('names and domains') and, importantly, that the query param is auto-routed to domain or company_name. It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but the added disclosure is meaningful.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case before the parameter mechanics and the follow-up workflow. Every sentence carries information, though it is slightly long; nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema handling return values and annotations handling the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: when to invoke, how to choose between parameter styles, and what to do next. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful meaning: it clarifies the either/or choice between a single `query` and the individual company_name/domain/description params, and specifies that `query` accepts a name, domain, or market description with automatic routing. The context/conversation_id session params are left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('find competitors for a company') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its ad-pulling siblings by positioning it as a discovery step that feeds them. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

It gives two explicit triggering conditions ('when you want to find competitors' and 'when you've just pulled ads for a brand') and names the exact downstream tools (get_meta_platform_id, search_linkedin_ads, get_competitive_brief) for the next step. Routing guidance is concrete rather than inferred.

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