List competitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the payload contents (share of voice, positions, suggestions) that no output schema provides, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. The second sentence, however, is largely redundant keyword restatement ('competitor analysis, competing sites, rival rankings') rather than earning 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?

With no output schema and two of three parameters undocumented, the description should carry more weight. It partially covers return contents but omits pagination semantics and the project-scoping requirement, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 33%: project_id is documented in the schema, while limit and cursor have no description anywhere. The description never mentions paging, result caps, or how cursor/limit interact, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List the competitor domains tracked for a project') and adds the returned data shape (share of voice, positions, suggestions). Sibling mutation tools add_competitor/remove_competitor are obviously different verbs, but the description never names them, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'Use it for competitor analysis, competing sites, and rival rankings' is a list of synonyms for the tool name, not actual when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of prerequisites, no when-not, and no pointer to add_competitor/remove_competitor for changing the tracked set.

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