get_auction_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returning competitive metrics) and adds context about 'competing domains' and 'where your ads appear relative to competitors'. However, it does not mention read-only status, data aggregation, permissions, or limitations, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key metrics, with no redundant phrasing. Every word serves a purpose.

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 read-only analytics tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, metrics, and competitive context. It does not elaborate on optional filters (days, campaign_id), but those are fully described in the schema. The description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 no parameter-specific context beyond naming the high-level purpose, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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: 'Return competitive auction insights' and lists specific metrics (impression share, overlap rate, position above rate, outranking share). It also positions itself as 'the primary competitive intelligence tool', distinguishing it from siblings like get_impression_share and get_campaign_performance.

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 clear context by labeling this as the primary competitive intelligence tool, implying it is the go-to for competitive insights. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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