competitor_gap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it queries Common Crawl (an external data source) and performs a diff against your domain. This gives the agent insight into data dependencies and the underlying mechanism, though it doesn't mention limitations like data freshness or rate limits.

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 purpose, and every word earns its place. No superfluous information.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, the data source, and the diff logic. It could mention return format, but the phrase 'find domains' reasonably implies the result is a set of domains, so the description is complete enough.

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%, with both parameters already described in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 finds domains linking to competitors but not to you, using a specific verb (Find) and resource (domains). It also explains the method (queries Common Crawl, diffs), and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_backlinks.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to identify link gap opportunities against competitors. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like discover_backlinks, but the use case is clear enough without exclusions.

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