compare_competitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the category-scoping context and the exact outputs (SoV percentages, winning prompts). However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like how competitors are determined by default, the granularity of prompt-level detail, or availability of the data for different categories.

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, all dense with useful information: purpose, return values, and trigger examples. Zero filler or redundancy. The description front-loads the core function and enumerates concrete outputs before giving usage examples.

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 tool has an output schema (which covers return format), good annotations (readOnlyHint), and 100% schema parameter coverage. The description provides trigger examples, expected outputs, and scoping context. Given this richness, the description is complete—nothing critical 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 100%, with all three parameters described in the schema. The description's main value-add is explaining that competitor_domains defaults to the brand's configured competitors when not provided, which supplements the schema's phrasing. The core parameter semantics are handled by the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combo ('Compare a brand's AI visibility against competitors') and lists exact return values (share-of-voice percentages, prompts the user wins/loses). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on competitive comparison vs single-brand visibility (check_visibility, get_visibility_history).

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 explicitly provides example user queries ('who beats me in AI search?', 'compare me to my competitors', 'why does [competitor] get cited more?') making trigger conditions crystal clear. Sibling tools like check_visibility and get_content_gaps handle single-brand or gap analysis, whereas this tool is specifically for competitive comparison, which the examples reinforce.

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