competitors_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the tool batches predict_citation across URLs and emits a divergence list, which is useful framing, but it discloses no auth, rate-limit, or cost characteristics of the batch call.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the usage rationale following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, usage, and output shape, which is sufficient for a single required parameter with full schema coverage, though sibling disambiguation is absent.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 2-10 bound and the 'one is typically yours, rest are competitors' convention. The description merely restates the 2-10 range, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: runs predict_citation over 2-10 URLs and returns a side-by-side signal table plus divergent signals. This is clear and distinguishable from the single-URL citations_predict. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling competitors_compete or competitors_canonical_set, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives concrete when-to-use guidance: comparing your URL against top-cited competitors for the same query. It conveys the intended scenario well but names no alternative tool or exclusion condition, so there is no routing help beyond context.

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