Find competitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it mentions the tool is 'Claude grounded by web search' (indicating web-based grounding) and clarifies the behavior of each mode. However, it does not elaborate on the 'company' mode's exact output, leaving a minor gap in transparency.

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: it opens with the core purpose, then efficiently covers modes and cost in a few short sentences. Every sentence adds useful information—purpose, grounding, mode details, and cost—with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does not describe the return format (e.g., list of brand names/domains) or any prerequisites like domain formatting. The 'company' mode is mentioned but its behavior is not explained. Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, modes), the description is somewhat incomplete, though the core purpose is clear.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by explicitly stating the default mode ('competitors (default)') and the exclusion behavior ('excludes the searched company'), which goes slightly beyond the schema's enum descriptions. This adds value but does not dramatically compensate for any missing param details.

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's function: 'Discover a brand's competitor / similar / adjacent brands from its domain.' It names the specific resource (brands) and the input (domain), and differentiates from sibling tools like pull_competitor_ads or competitor_teardown by focusing on brand discovery rather than ads or analysis. The modes are also mentioned, adding specificity.

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 provides usage context by explaining the three modes and their behavior (competitors excludes searched company, inspiration includes it, company presumably returns the company itself), and notes the cost ('0 credits'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings (e.g., competitor_teardown) or when not to use it, leaving some room for inference.

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