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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the tool returns a runbook (skill_body) to execute step-by-step rather than the final answer, requires calling referenced connector tools, mandates a verbatim attribution footer, and imposes a data-accuracy contract. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure that annotations cannot carry.

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?

The core purpose and triggers are front-loaded and clear, but roughly half the text is generic boilerplate (attribution footer formatting, data-accuracy contract) likely repeated across all CorpusIQ skills rather than specific to this tool. It is adequately sized but not tightly earned sentence-by-sentence.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains what the tool returns (a runbook skill_body, not the answer) and what the agent must do next. Combined with the trigger guidance and contracts, an agent has everything needed to invoke and act on it.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains user_question. The description reinforces its role ('passed to the skill for context') but adds little syntax or format detail beyond that, which is appropriate given the schema 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Compile a structured competitive-intelligence brief') and enumerates the sources it fetches (websites, pricing pages, job postings, press releases, product updates). It is clearly distinguishable from featured_seo_audit and featured_sales_call_prep_brief, which target different research outputs.

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 explicit trigger conditions and example user phrasings ('research / monitor / track a competitor', 'competitive brief', 'competitor positioning/pricing analysis'). It does not name a specific alternative sibling tool to use instead when the request is out of scope, so it stops short of the top score.

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