get_positioning_dashboard

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is read-only and returns a JSON object. This is sufficient for a simple read operation, though it could mention data freshness or caching. Still, it communicates the key behavioral trait of non-destructiveness.

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 long, with the first providing purpose and the second listing returned fields. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the list of fields is lengthy but necessary for clarity. No wasted 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields comprehensively. It covers usage context (latest snapshot vs history) and the single required parameter is well-documented in the schema. The tool's behavior and output are fully described for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema already providing a clear description of projectId. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, thus the baseline score 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 clearly states it gets the latest Positioning analysis for all competitors, listing over a dozen specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_positioning_history, which is for past runs.

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 instructs to use this for the current snapshot and mentions the alternative get_positioning_history for past runs, providing clear guidance on when to use each.

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