find_competitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the return format ('Returns competitor domains with relevance scores'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention any limitations, prerequisites, or confirm the read-only nature, leaving some gaps 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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and output. No unnecessary words or redundancy; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what it does, the method, and the return format. It does not explain the 'relevance scores' in detail or mention potential limitations, but these are not critical for basic understanding. Given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 both parameters (`domain` and `limit`) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only restates that it finds competitors for a domain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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: 'Find SEO competitors for a domain based on shared backlinks.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), the resource ('SEO competitors for a domain'), and the method ('based on shared backlinks'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_serp_competitors`. It also describes the output, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'based on shared backlinks' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, implying a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance but still conveys a distinct usage scenario.

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