Get Competitor Positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform about behavioral traits. It only says 'Get statistics on the positions', omitting details like whether data is aggregated, how filtering works (date, engine), mutability (likely read-only), or response structure. The lack of output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 short (two sentences) and includes a prefix for context. However, the first sentence ('Project Tool: Requires a competitor ID') is redundant with the required parameter in the schema, making it slightly less concise.

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 5 parameters (including optional filters like date range and SERP features) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'statistics' are returned or how filtering works, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty for invocation.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds minor context ('competitor keywords that were added to the project') not fully captured in schema descriptions, raising the value slightly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves statistics on competitor keyword positions within a project, which distinguishes it from siblings like PROJECT_getCompetitorTop10 (likely top positions only) and PROJECT_getAllCompetitorsMetrics (metrics for all competitors). However, it could more explicitly define 'statistics' and the scope (e.g., date range, search engine).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires a competitor ID') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_getCompetitorTop10 or PROJECT_getCompetitorTop100. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings.

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