get_competitor

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by explicitly stating 'Read-only' (no side effects) and 'Returns JSON object' (output type). This provides sufficient behavioral transparency for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile and output format.

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, immediately front-loading the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value: first defines function, second gives usage context and behavioral notes. No extraneous words.

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 no output schema, the description states 'Returns JSON object', which is minimal but acceptable for a retrieval tool. It covers required parameters (projectId, competitorId) and output contents (monitored pages, configuration). Could mention potential errors or size, but for a single-object getter, it's adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining that competitorId is obtained from list_competitors and that returned details include 'monitored pages' (homepage and pricing page URLs) and configuration, giving semantic meaning to the output fields.

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?

Clearly states 'Get competitor details' and specifies included fields (monitored pages with homepage/pricing URLs, configuration). Distinguishes from sibling list_competitors by noting it provides metadata beyond what list_competitors offers, with an example (finding tracked URLs).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you need specific competitor metadata beyond what list_competitors provides') and provides a prerequisite ('Requires competitorId from list_competitors'). This gives clear guidance on context and alternatives.

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