competitive_landscape

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that it returns week-over-week deltas, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not mention any destructive actions, confirming the read-only nature.

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: first states purpose and outputs, second gives usage context. No fluff, front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite 30 parameters and no output schema, the description only outlines three output fields (top sellers, top brands, deltas) and does not explain the filtering parameters or which inputs are required (e.g., category_root_id or brand is implied but not explicit). For a complex tool with many options, this is incomplete.

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 only 10% (3 of 30 parameters have descriptions). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of most parameters, including required context like brand or category_root_id. It only hints at needing a brand or category root but doesn't specify which parameters to use. With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 maps competitive landscape for a brand or category root, specifying exact outputs: top 10 sellers by buybox days, top 10 brands by HHI, and week-over-week deltas. It also provides example queries ('who's winning this category?'), making the purpose distinct from siblings like brand_buybox_trajectory or operator_concentration.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool with example questions ('who's winning this category?', 'who controls the buybox here?'), which is strong usage guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the clear context suffices for an agent to decide.

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