competitor_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses async behavior, return format, the need to poll get_job, side effects (crawl + profile analysis per domain), and expected duration. This is far beyond a minimal disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: async nature, batch scope and target, return format and polling, side effects and timing. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the most critical 'Async' requirement.

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 an async batch operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains how to invoke, what to expect (operationId, status), how to track completion (poll get_job), what will happen (crawl + analysis), and typical latency. It provides enough context for an agent to use correctly and know what to do next.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds behavioral context (each domain triggers analysis) but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Both brandId and domains are adequately described in 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?

Clear, specific verb 'batch-add' with resource 'competitor domains' and target 'brand'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like competitor_probe or competitor_update by emphasizing the batch add behavior. Even without naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage for adding multiple competitor domains and explains the async polling flow, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools like competitor_probe for single-domain tasks. This is sufficient for a clear context but lacks exclusions.

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