competitor_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing the async nature and return behavior: 'Returns { started: true } when kicked off, or { alreadyRan, status } when a probe result already exists.' Also hints at the crawling behavior. It doesn't detail internal side effects but enough for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded with the action, then return values, then workflow. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's role in the workflow: start, poll, classify. It explains return values inline and notes idempotency. For a simple async trigger with one optional parameter, this is 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?

Schema coverage for the only parameter brandId is 100%, and the schema already describes it as 'Brand ID (defaults to active brand)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 'Start a competitor discovery probe', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings by explaining it initiates the process, while competitor_probe_status polls and competitor_probe_classify handles candidate acceptance.

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?

Provides clear context: it's for automatically finding rival domains via web crawling, and outlines the next steps (poll status, then classify). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer manual alternatives like competitor_add, or mention any exclusions.

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