get_competitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states that credits vary and requires an API key, but fails to mention if the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or any destructive behavior. The disclosure is insufficient for an AI agent to assess safety.

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 short (2 sentences plus a line about requirements) and avoids verbosity. However, it sacrifices valuable information for brevity, leading to under-specification. It is adequately concise but could be more informative without becoming bloated.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which can document return values), the description does not reference it or any return structure. It lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., list of domains with metrics). For a tool with 4 parameters and no parameter docs, the description is incomplete.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter (e.g., 'domain' is not clarified as the source domain, 'location' defaults to Germany but no context is given). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get competitor domains based on keyword overlap.' It specifies the action ('get'), the resource ('competitor domains'), and the criterion ('keyword overlap'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the purpose is specific enough for an AI agent to understand its core function.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires VISIBLYAI_API_KEY') and suggests checking balance via 'get_account_info', but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_keywords' or 'get_backlinks'. There is no context about typical use cases or when to avoid it.

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