get_competitive_battlecard

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the return type ('scaffold') without specifying the format, content, side effects, or auth requirements. The agent has minimal insight into what a 'scaffold' entails.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a list of scenarios. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no unnecessary information. Every part earns its place.

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 the simplicity (one enum param, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the return structure, typical usage context, or any limitations. The agent would be uncertain about the nature of a 'battlecard scaffold'.

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 is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the parameter 'scenario' has an enum with three values that are also listed in the description. The description adds context ('competitive sales scenario') but does not clarify what each scenario means beyond its identifier.

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 returns a 'battlecard scaffold' for competitive sales scenarios, and lists the three allowed scenario values. The verb 'returns' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like questionnaire or RFP templates.

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 when to use the tool—when a battlecard for one of the listed competitive scenarios is needed—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No usage exclusions or context provided.

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