add_competitor

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by specifying that metadata is fetched from the store and ranking entries are backfilled for each tracked keyword. This goes beyond the annotations and clearly communicates the external side effects and data creation, which is exactly what the dimension rewards.

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 primary action, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the key process details without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate-complexity tool with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description sufficiently explains the operation. It does not mention error handling or response format, but with no output schema and the clarity provided, the description is adequate. Minor gaps like prerequisites (e.g., having an application with tracked keywords) are implied but not explicit, preventing a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are described in the input schema. The tool description does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It repeats that the competitor is identified by bundle ID, but that is already in the schema. Therefore, the description adds minimal value, placing it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 adds a competitor app to an existing application, specifies the identifier (store bundle ID), and outlines the side effects (fetch metadata, backfill rankings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_application (which adds main apps) and list/remove_competitor (which manage competitor lists).

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 implicitly conveys when to use it: when you want to track a competitor's rankings for an app. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., what if the competitor already exists). The context from sibling tools (list_competitors, remove_competitor) makes the purpose clear, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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