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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the expected duration (~10-20 minutes), the cost model ('spends a few data-vendor calls, never ad money'), and the plan/role gating. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and nothing in the description contradicts them; the extra cost and latency context is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a long-running refresh.

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?

It is front-loaded and dense: the core action comes first, followed by duration, eligibility, and cost. The telegraphic fragments ('Pro plans, once a week; owner, admin or manager') are slightly compressed but each sentence still carries distinct, useful information.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the remaining gaps an agent would care about: latency, cost, plan/role prerequisites, and the recommendation to skip it when weekly data is fresh.

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% for the single 'language' enum parameter, so the schema already explains the default behavior (business's language). The description adds no further semantics about that parameter, which is acceptable but does not exceed the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it re-checks every followed competitor immediately rather than waiting for the weekly cycle, and then refreshes the ideas. That clearly separates it from sibling tools such as list_competitors (read-only listing) and add_competitor (setup), so an agent can tell what this tool does 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 states the trigger (use this instead of waiting for the weekly check) and gives a soft when-not in 'The weekly data is usually fresh,' which discourages unnecessary calls. It also gates usage by plan ('Pro plans, once a week') and role ('owner, admin or manager'), so eligibility conditions are explicit.

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