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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds 'Execution: synchronous', 'Task support: forbidden', and detailed instructions on handling returned JSON (never display raw JSON, use assistantSummary, suggest next action). These are meaningful behavioral disclosures not present in structured annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains useful behavioral guidance in a structured format. It has minor redundancy (first sentence repeats the title) and a double period, but it remains concise and informative for its length.

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?

The output schema exists, covering return values, and the description covers key behavioral constraints and usage context. However, it does not explain parameter semantics or explicitly differentiate from related tools like leanriq_get_competitor_creative_intelligence, leaving some gaps for an 8-parameter tool.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., seatId, competitorId, includeEvidence). The only hint is 'advertiser-scoped competitor' in the title, which does not define parameter meaning. This is a significant gap for a tool with many parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'saved canonical LeanrIQ Competitor Intelligence V2 for an advertiser-scoped competitor.' It explicitly notes what it does not do ('does not reacquire evidence or generate new recommendations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_competitor_intelligence.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (for reading saved intelligence) and explicitly excludes reacquisition or new recommendations, implying it is not for fresh generation. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use references.

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