Competitor teardown

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description elaborates extensively: credit spending, LLM token usage, auto-pull behavior, and tailoring to saved brand. No contradictions. Adds rich context beyond annotations.

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 verbose but well-structured: starts with output list, then parameter details. Every sentence contributes meaningful context. Slightly long but avoids redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (auto-pull, credit costs, output tailoring), the description is remarkably complete. Covers all important aspects: inputs, behavior, costs, output components. Without an output schema, it still gives a clear picture of what the tool returns.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the contract for the `ads` parameter (auto-pull vs. pass ads) and how the `competitor` parameter interacts with brand data. Enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 precisely states it tears down a competitor's ad strategy into a playbook with specific components (hook MIX, themes, white space, counter-plays). It uses strong, specific verbs and resource, and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_meta_ads or find_competitors.

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 clear context on when to use (for competitive analysis) and how to use (pass ads or auto-pull). Mentions tailoring to saved brand. Does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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