competitor_generate_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excellently discloses async behavior, credit cost (~20 credits), return shape ({ operationId, status }), polling target (get_job), and typical duration (~2–5 min). This goes well beyond the minimal 'generate' verb and gives the agent a precise mental model of the tool's side effects and flow.

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 async nature and purpose, and directly follows with the essential operational details (credits, return shape, polling, time). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 generation tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the expected return value, the polling mechanism, the time estimate, and the cost. The combination of purpose, behavior, and operational guidance fully equips an agent to invoke and follow up on this tool.

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 covers the only parameter (brandId) with a clear description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate the competitive landscape overview'. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like competitor_get_overview by explicitly marking it as async and returning an operationId, which implies it initiates a background job rather than retrieving an existing result.

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 provides clear context for use: it's an async operation that requires polling get_job until completion. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., using competitor_get_overview for existing overviews), but the async pattern and polling instructions effectively guide the agent on when and how to use this tool.

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