get_competitor_channels

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that it returns counts, coverage, and read states, and explicitly warns it provides facts only, not scores. This is good behavioral context, though it doesn't mention pagination, performance implications, or whether the data might be cached/stale. Given the lack of annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core value proposition (

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?

The tool is relatively simple (single optional param, no output schema), so the description is adequate: it covers the data returned, the use cases, and distinguishes read state. It could mention that it's a read-only operation, but given the lack of destructive implications and the strong factual framing, it's complete enough.

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% (brand_id is described), but the description adds context:

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 every competitor under watch with per-channel captured-ad counts and coverage, and explicitly names the channels (Meta Ads, TikTok, Google/YouTube, Instagram). It also clarifies the output is facts only, distinguishing it from analysis tools like get_competitor_patterns or get_competitor_timeline.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use to show the Competitors rail and channel tabs, or to answer

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