compete_for_query

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits by explaining the orchestration steps and return values ('your score, the average competitor score, and the gap'), though it omits potential side effects (likely none).

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 succinct sentences front-load the purpose and orchestration, with no wasted words.

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 description adequately explains the tool's function and return values despite no output schema, and accounts for the orchestration of sub-tools, though it could mention that sub-tool behaviors apply.

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 good descriptions; the tool description adds context to parameters by relating them to the workflow (e.g., max_competitors references compare_domains limit) but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what schema offers.

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 it is an 'End-to-end competitive snapshot for a single query' and outlines the orchestration of check_citations and compare_domains, distinguishing it as a higher-level tool from siblings.

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 explains the workflow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_citations or compare_domains individually, nor does it provide when-not conditions.

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