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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: it discloses a non-obvious inclusion rule (competitors checked and never found) and the default return shape (run totals plus first 10 questions). It does not discuss pagination/auth beyond what the schema covers.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of padding. The opening 'Use this to see' is slightly throat-clearing, but the rest is dense and earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the inclusion semantics and default paging needed to call it correctly; only explicit alternative-routing 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 coverage is 75%, with limit, offset, run_id, and question_id largely documented in-schema. The description corroborates the default (first 10 questions) and the per-question/per-engine dimension, but adds little syntax or meaning the schema does not already carry for offset and question_id.

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 precise resource: competitors named in answers that did NOT name the client, broken down per question and engine, for a single run. That scope is unique among siblings like get_results, get_sources, or compare_runs, so an agent can select it 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?

'Use this to see...' restates the purpose rather than telling the agent when to prefer this over get_results or get_battlecard. The one scoping rule given ('Scheduled answers only') is a constraint, not routing guidance, leaving usage only implied.

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