brand_under_attack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: explains the use of brand-level first-seen, which is stable under scraper-coverage growth, and notes it is not inflated like per-ASIN counts. 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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and methodology, technical nuance, and usage examples. No fluff, front-loaded with primary 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?

Given rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers key aspects. It could optionally mention the output format (e.g., threat levels), but absence of output schema makes it acceptable. Provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: detecting if a brand is under competitive attack using new-entrant rate and buy-box churn. It also provides example user queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brand_buybox_trajectory or brands_gaining_sellers.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool via example user queries ('use when the user asks...'). It explains the methodology (brand-level first-seen) implying why this tool is better than per-ASIN alternatives, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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