competitor_comparison_sources

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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It does state the return format (URLs, snippets, timestamps) and that it is for auditing, providing some transparency. However, it does not mention pagination, error behavior, or whether it is read-only, which would be valuable.

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 concise and efficient: two sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide return details and a use case. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 simple 1-param tool without an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, and why you'd use it. It lacks a small amount of detail, such as potential output size limits, but is otherwise complete.

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 only parameter, brandId, is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists data sources for the brand's competitive comparison, using a specific verb ('List') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like competitor_get_comparison by focusing on raw source records, not the comparison itself.

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 a clear use case: auditing comparison accuracy. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation.

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