get_competitors

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the source and example output but lacks details on error handling, input validation, authorization needs, or limitations (e.g., only US companies from SEC filings). The example helps, but more context is needed for thorough transparency.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, source, and example. No unnecessary text.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the source and provides an example output format. However, it could mention potential empty results or ticker requirements for full completeness.

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%, so the description must explain the 'ticker' parameter. The example uses 'AAPL' to imply it's a stock ticker, but the description does not explicitly define 'ticker' or its valid format. This provides marginal added value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get all known competitors of a company.' It specifies the data source (SEC 10-K filings) and provides a concrete example (AAPL -> Microsoft, Samsung, Google). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_customers or get_supply_chain.

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 explains when to use the tool (to retrieve competitors) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. While the sibling list exists, no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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