competitor_gap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds that the tool costs 10 credits and identifies specific data gaps (rankings, reviews, ratings), which provides context beyond annotations. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists key outcomes and cost. No extraneous information, efficiently communicates essential details.

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 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the main purpose and outputs (ranking gaps, review differences, rating advantages). It does not explain default parameter behaviors (e.g., keyword defaults to business name, competitors defaults to 5), but these are covered in the schema descriptions. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it compares your business against local competitors and identifies ranking gaps, review count differences, and rating advantages. It uses a specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'your business against local competitors'. While it distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., 'backlink_gap' focuses on backlinks), it does not explicitly differentiate from other local competitor tools.

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 implies usage when you want to compare against local competitors and identify gaps, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. The cost of 10 credits is mentioned, which is a usage factor but not a guideline.

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