Get competitive landscape

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real disclosure: history is never synthesized, stored weeks exist only for Pro accounts, the return includes an 'honest tracking-start date', and long Markdown is paginated with each page naming the next call. Return-format and gating behavior are thus visible, though rate limits and failure modes are unstated.

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?

Purpose and the 'Use when' trigger are front-loaded and the block structure is scannable, but the four-item Args section duplicates schema descriptions almost verbatim (week, format, page, project_id), so several lines do not earn their 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: coordinates, trailing signal counts, momentum, latest headlines, importance source, available weeks, and tracking-start date. Pagination semantics are also covered, leaving only edge cases like empty/absent weeks unspecified.

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% and all four parameters are already described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The Args block largely restates the schema; its only marginal additions are the cross-reference to availableWeeks and the instruction to call list_projects first for the id.

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 ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('current or stored weekly competitor positions on activity × strategic importance'), which separates it from siblings like get_competitor_intelligence, get_battlecard, and get_strategic_timeline. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger phrases are given ('who is the biggest moving threat?', 'who moved most this month?') along with prerequisites ('Call list_projects first for the id') and a tier gate ('History requires Pro; the current view remains available below Pro'). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the question is not about movement.

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