Competitor co-occurrence (head-to-head)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: output structure (per-competitor rows with win rate and average positions), the 'tracked competitors only' restriction, and the data-retention window constraint on dates.

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?

Front-loaded with the core comparison logic, then output shape, then optional filter and constraints, ending with example questions. Dense but every clause carries information; the final example-questions sentence is slightly redundant but still useful for routing.

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 7-parameter analytical tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it explains what the result rows contain, the competitorId focus, and key constraints. Minor gaps remain around the non-competitor filters and required identifiers, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 43%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It clarifies competitorId as the single-rival focus and adds a retention-window constraint on the date params, but says nothing about organizationId, projectId, or how engines/countries filter the comparison, leaving those to the 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?

States a specific analytical operation: comparing who is named higher in AI answers where brand and competitor both appear, with a clear output shape (one row per competitor, win/loss/tie counts, win rate, representative query). This is precise enough for an agent to distinguish it from a generic share-of-voice or mention tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 usage context with example questions ("who wins when we both appear", "do I outrank competitor X", "who is mentioned first") and constraints (tracked competitors only, dates within retention window). It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tools, keeping it below the top tier.

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