discover_competitors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states only the discovery purpose and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, how results are scoped, or what side effects exist. The output schema may cover return values, but the operational profile remains opaque.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient for the purpose it states, though it does not attempt to cover the missing parameter and behavioral context.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two required parameters, the description is too thin: it omits parameter meaning, read/write behavior, and any routing guidance against closely related sibling tools.

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 0% and the description does not mention run_id or product_or_domain at all. An agent learns nothing about what run_id refers to, what format product_or_domain expects, or how either parameter influences the result.

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 (Discover) and resource (competing products, alternative services, adjacent solutions) scoped to corpus signals. It is clearly distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with close alternatives like find_products or find_workarounds.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'mentioned in corpus signals' gives minimal context, but an agent still has to infer when this tool should be chosen over siblings such as find_products or find_workarounds.

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