List competitor leaderboard

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior: up to 8 rows, appended rows for the owned website and brand ahead, non-strict ordering, and the no-website setup payload with an instruction not to invent dates or scores.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers ordering behavior, comparison preference, and the no-setup edge case without redundant wording.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the normal call flow and the notable no-website edge case. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not relevant here.

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 the tool lists the visibility leaderboard for the account website with share-of-voice metrics. The verb and resource are specific, and the 'competitor leaderboard' framing distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools even without naming them.

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?

Provides operational guidance: prefer visibilityRank, then share of voice; highlight isKeyCompetitor rivals; follow server instructions when no website is set up. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the leaderboard context and comparison guidance make the intended use clear.

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