list_competitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and returns a JSON array, and includes behavioral details like the inclusion of the user's own domain with an isOwn marker. This adds value beyond the schema, though it could mention any potential rate limits or permission requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It states the main action, key details, and usage context in a few well-structured sentences. Every sentence adds value.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (JSON array with domain, name, status, and isOwn flag). It also provides usage context and links to other tools. For a simple list tool, this is comprehensive.

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% because the sole parameter (projectId) has a clear description in the schema: 'Project ID (from list_projects)'. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 the tool lists all competitors for a project, including the user's own domain, and specifies the returned fields (domain, name, status). It distinguishes itself by indicating the output is a JSON array and mentions its use for getting competitorId values, differentiating from sibling tools.

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 that this tool is used to get competitorId values needed by several other tools (list_alerts, get_competitor, get_content_changelog). It also notes that the tool is read-only. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context provides additional differentiation.

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