check_competitor_now

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false but say nothing about cost, timing, or preconditions; the description fills all three: each run is billed, results land asynchronously in get_competitor_changes shortly after, and stopped monitors cannot run. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before triggering an out-of-band, non-idempotent, billable call.

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 action, then usage, then behavior, then the single arg — a sensible order with no filler sentences. Minor drag from the trailing '[Provider: Parallel AI]' tag, which carries no decision value for the caller.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, that it costs money, that output is asynchronous and where it surfaces, and that stopped monitors are ineligible. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does by stating monitor_id is the ID returned by watch_competitor() or list_competitor_monitors(). It tells the agent where to source the value but not its format (string/UUID) or an example.

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 and resource ('Run an immediate check of one of the user's monitored competitors') and immediately scopes it as 'outside its schedule', which separates it from any scheduled-check behavior. It also names the downstream reader (get_competitor_changes) and the creator (watch_competitor), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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 a clear trigger ('when the user wants a fresh check') plus two concrete example situations (right after creating a monitor, or when a competitor may have just shipped). It also states a precondition / exclusion ('A stopped monitor can't run'). Missing an explicit statement of when not to use it in favor of just waiting for the scheduled check or reading existing changes.

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