List brands excluded from competitor rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: exclusions apply to the active project and affect competitor rankings and share-of-voice calculations across historical data. It does not fully describe return format, but this is minor for a zero-parameter list 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool returns, and the following sentences explain why exclusions exist and the effect of excluding a brand. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: it returns excluded brands for the active project and explains the domain semantics. It does not describe output formatting, but the absence of an output schema is less critical here given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the parameter baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by confirming the tool operates on the active project context rather than requiring explicit arguments, which is the only parameter-related meaning an agent needs.

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 names the exact resource ('brands excluded from competitor rankings') and the action ('list') for the active project. It also distinguishes this from a general competitor list by explaining that excluded brands are the ones kept out of rankings, which separates it from siblings like list_competitors.

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 gives clear context: assistants name many candidate competitors, and this tool lists the ones deliberately excluded from rankings. It implicitly tells an agent when to call it and contrasts with the write counterpart set_competitor_exclusions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when...'.

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