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

Annotations already declare write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds specific behavioral context beyond that: the next scan mines affiliates deep, the exact error conditions too_many and already_tracked, and the undo tool remove_competitor.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then undo. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a write tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering its safety profile, the description supplies error codes, scan impact, and undo path. Nothing needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by domain or URL' for the required domain, which matches schema text and provides no additional syntax or format detail.

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?

Clearly states the verb (add), resource (competitor), and method (by domain or URL). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling add_suggested_competitor, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear context for use: same rules as the Competitors page, plan cap (too_many), duplicate brand (already_tracked), and the undo path via remove_competitor. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over add_suggested_competitor, but the constraints and reversibility guidance are strong.

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