get_competitors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns 'Verified competitors with name, phone, website, address,' implying a read-only operation. While it doesn't detail authorization or rate limits, the behavior is sufficiently disclosed for a simple search tool.

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?

The description is concise, well-structured with sections for usage, returns, and examples. Every sentence is meaningful, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage triggers, return format, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, though the description already covers them.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing each parameter with examples, valid values (e.g., sector slugs, city names), defaults, and ranges. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema.

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 'Find competitors in the same sector and city,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like borme_lookup or verify_vat, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool with user query examples ('who are the competitors?'), but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings. However, the context is clear enough for selection.

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