compare_competitors

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

The description discloses that the tool runs N+1 fresh audits (not read-only), consumes quota, and returns side-by-side scores with differentiators. This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is highly concise and structured effectively.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return format, but it still mentions scores and differentiators. It covers key behavioral aspects like parallelism, quota consumption, and use cases, making it complete for an agent to decide correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning 'parallel' execution, 'optional industry benchmarks', and quota consumption, but does not deeply elaborate on each parameter's usage. The added context justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Audit your site vs N competitor URLs in parallel' and clearly distinguishes from sibling tool diff_audits, which compares existing audits. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Best for positioning, pitch decks, quarterly scans' and contrasts with diff_audits, stating when to use this tool (fresh audits) vs when to use the alternative (existing audits). It also notes quota consumption.

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