get_competitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the shape of the returned data (monitored pages and their URLs), which is useful, but discloses nothing about pagination, permissions, or error behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return scope and followed by the ID-sourcing prerequisite. No redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read with no nested objects and no output schema, the description plus 100%-covered schema is nearly sufficient; the added note about which fields are returned compensates for the missing output schema. Only minor gaps remain (no pagination or error semantics).

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 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions pointing to list_projects and list_competitors. The description's 'use competitorId values from list_competitors' merely echoes the schema, adding no format, constraint, or selection meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (competitor details) and names the payload it returns (monitored pages: homepage URL, pricing page URL). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_competitors, which only enumerates competitors rather than returning per-competitor detail.

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 tells the agent where to source the required competitorId (from list_competitors), which is the key prerequisite for a correct call. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming a detail-vs-list alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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