Competitor search

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

The description adds one useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'This operation may consume SEO Intellect account limits.' However, it does not disclose async/polling behavior or result shape, and the redundant 'Upstream API tool: competitors' provides no additional value.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is mostly useful for the account-limits warning, though 'Upstream API tool: competitors' is largely redundant with the tool name.

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 tool with an anyOf schema supporting both direct keyword queries and task_id continuation, the description is thin. It does not describe return values or async behavior, though the schema's inline parameter descriptions cover some of that ground.

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?

The description contributes no parameter-level meaning. Per the context signals, schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden; the description meets the baseline but does not compensate for anything.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Find organic-search competitors for a keyword set.' It is specific enough to separate this from semantic siblings like lsi or relevant_pages, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only context is the upstream API mapping and an account-limits warning, neither of which helps an agent decide between alternatives.

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