list_competitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a list operation (implying read-only behavior) and mentions the output includes internal IDs for downstream use. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what 'tracked' means. The description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of 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 highly concise and well-structured: three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, parameter guidance, and downstream usage. Each sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple list operation), one parameter with 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like what 'tracked' entails or output specifics, though the output schema may handle some of this.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'account_id comes from get_my_accounts', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement. This clarifies the parameter's source and purpose, though it doesn't detail format or constraints. With one parameter and partial compensation, this exceeds the baseline for low coverage.

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 'List' and resource 'tracked competitor brands with their internal IDs', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_competitor_ads' or 'scrape_competitor_ads' beyond mentioning they require IDs from this response, which provides some differentiation but not a complete distinction.

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 usage guidance: it states that 'account_id comes from get_my_accounts' (prerequisite), and 'Use competitor IDs from this response for get_competitor_ads and scrape_competitor_ads' (downstream usage). This gives clear context on when and how to use this tool in relation to alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it.

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