canonical_competitor_set

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains the aggregation by registered domain, per-engine breakdown, and top URLs. Missing details like error handling or rate limits, but core behavior is well disclosed.

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 with clear front-loading: action first, then outcome, then usage. No redundant or vague language.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, description adequately covers input, process, and output. Mentions output includes top domains, per-engine breakdown, and top URLs. Could specify ranking metric or confidence indicators, but sufficient for selection and use.

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%, baseline 3. Description does not add parameter-specific details beyond schema; e.g., 'aggregate citations by registered domain' clarifies output behavior rather than parameters. Schema descriptions are already thorough.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fans a query across engines, aggregates citations by registered domain, and returns top competitor domains with cross-engine consensus. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_domains' by focusing on registered domain aggregation and consensus ranking.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to identify the canonical competitor set for a query - the domains every engine treats as authoritative.' Provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among sibling tools.

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