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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds value beyond them: it discloses that external sources are read, that an allowance is consumed, and that admin privilege is required. It stops short of describing latency or what happens when the allowance is exhausted.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the precondition, with no filler. The colon construction is slightly dense but every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the precondition, auth requirement, and quota cost. Only the quota-exhaustion behavior and expected duration are left unstated.

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%, including a full explanation of the idempotency_key retry contract, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail for competitor_id or the key, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Starts the first research on one core competitor') and immediately narrows the scope with the precondition 'that has none yet'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_competitor and refresh_watchlist, which an agent could otherwise confuse with it.

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 a clear use condition (only for competitors with no existing research) plus an access gate (Admin only) and a cost (one weekly research update). It does not name an explicit alternative for re-researching an already-researched competitor, but the precondition implies this tool is not the one to use there.

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