competitor_recompute_comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It hints at an asynchronous action ('Trigger') but fails to disclose whether it blocks, returns immediately, or requires polling for completion. It also omits potential side effects like overwriting existing comparisons.

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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no filler 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain outcomes and next steps. It explains purpose and trigger conditions but leaves the agent guessing about how results are obtained, whether the operation is asynchronous, and what 'recompute' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other context.

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 fully documents the only parameter (brandId) with a description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to compensate given high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and a clear object ('fresh head-to-head comparison recompute'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from read-only comparison tools by emphasizing the recompute 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('after adding or re-analyzing competitors') and the intended goal ('to get an up-to-date comparison'). It does not name alternative tools, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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