Tear down a competitor

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: output is Markdown not raw JSON, results are dated/lead with refresh time, ads count as active only if seen in the last 30 days, and unscored momentum is labeled as not scored. These are genuine operational traits the agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then a routing sentence, args, and return/edge-case notes. It is longer than a minimal description but every block earns its place; minor density in the final caveat sentence keeps it from a 5.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it specifies Markdown format, freshness dating, the 30-day active-ad rule, unscored momentum handling, and the not-in-universe fallback. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 there is a single required 'domain' param, so the schema already documents it fully. The description restates 'domain or any URL on it' and the required status, adding marginal value over the structured field. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (produce a full strategy teardown of one competitor by domain) and enumerates the exact contents (positioning/hooks, pricing, ads, social, reviews, hiring, momentum, weaknesses). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the ad-only teardown and names the sibling tools it defers to, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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?

Gives explicit invocation phrasing ('tear down <competitor>', 'what is <competitor>'s strategy and where are they weak?') and states it is the broader one-call option vs an ad-only teardown. It also routes the not-yet-in-universe case to get_competitor_intelligence / get_report, naming concrete alternatives.

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