Get Competitor Top 10

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic operation. It does not disclose data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or read-only nature, leaving behavioral traits opaque.

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 very short (one sentence) and includes a key requirement. It is efficient but could integrate more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not clarify what 'TOP 10 results' entails (e.g., positions, domains). For a tool with four required parameters, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'keyword_id' as a query ID. 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 returns a list of TOP 10 results for tracked keywords in a project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like PROJECT_getCompetitorTop100 and PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions, but could be more precise about the nature of the results.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as PROJECT_getCompetitorTop100 or PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions. The description only notes that it is a project tool requiring a site_id, missing explicit usage context.

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