competitor_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the async nature, the return shape ({ operationId, status }), the need to poll get_job, and a typical duration of ~2–5 minutes, giving the agent a clear operational model.

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 cover async status, usage differentiation, and return/polling/ETA with no filler. The front-loaded 'Async.' immediately sets expectations.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the return shape, polling behavior, and expected runtime, which is sufficient for a simple async trigger tool with two params. It leaves no critical ambiguity for invocation.

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 brandCompetitorIds and brandId fully described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 opens with 'Async. Trigger analysis for existing BrandCompetitor rows that are pending or failed,' naming a specific action, resource, and scope. It differentiates itself from sibling competitor_add by explicitly stating it is for retry rather than creation.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use competitor_add to create new rows; use this to retry failed ones,' providing clear when-to-use versus an alternative. It also instructs to poll get_job until completion, giving practical next steps.

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