competitor_get_comparison

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 explicitly discloses the null return behavior when no comparison exists, and specifies the output structure for each detail level (short, medium, full). This is transparent about a key edge case, though it doesn't mention potential errors or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured: a single purpose sentence, a compact overview of detail levels, and a final sentence on null handling. Every sentence delivers unique information without verbosity or repetition.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description compensates by detailing return structures and null behavior. It provides enough context for the agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could further clarify the distinction between this and competitor_get_overview. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval 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 already documents both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying concrete response fields for each detail level (e.g., generatedAt, competitorCount, strengths, weaknesses) not present in the schema's generic descriptions. This enhances the agent's understanding of what each detail setting returns.

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: 'Get the brand's head-to-head competitive comparison.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('head-to-head competitive comparison'), distinguishing it from siblings like competitor_recompute_comparison by noting the null case and the alternative action.

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 a clear usage context: when a comparison hasn't been generated, it returns null and directs the agent to use competitor_recompute_comparison. It also explains the detail levels to help select the appropriate verbosity. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other competitor tools like competitor_get_overview, which would strengthen the guidance.

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