diff_competitor_landscape

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that since_timestamp is ignored, that the diff is against a stored watch snapshot, and that a snapshot is created if missing—an important side effect. It doesn't cover return format or auth, but the output schema likely covers return shape.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core function and no filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and caveats. It lacks explicit use-case or alternative guidance, but the core purpose and MVP limitations are well stated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain since_timestamp as API-compatibility only, which adds real meaning. However, hackathon_id is left to name-based inference and is not explicitly tied to the snapshot context.

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?

Clearly states it diffs current public submissions against the last watch snapshot, using a specific verb (diff) and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling gallery/extraction tools like discover_public_gallery or extract_public_submissions.

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 makes its primary use clear: compare live submissions to a stored snapshot. It also warns that since_timestamp is accepted only for API compatibility and ignored in the MVP, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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