Get a site's competitor analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior (no new analysis triggered) and discloses the edge-case return value status:'NONE' when nothing exists. It omits auth/rate-limit context but covers the key behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

Two tight sentences: the primary purpose with returned fields first, then the critical constraint and edge case. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and the 'NONE' status, which is enough for correct invocation and expectation-setting. Minor gaps remain around what 'latest' means (freshness) but overall it is fit for purpose.

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% (siteId is fully documented), so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about siteId format or constraints, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (récupère/récupère la dernière analyse) and resource (analyse concurrentielle d'un site), and enumerates the returned content (concurrents détectés, tiers, citations, recommandations). An agent immediately understands this is a retrieval of competitor data, distinct from the audit-running siblings.

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 states when NOT to expect action: 'Ne déclenche PAS de nouvelle analyse', which routes the agent away from expecting a fresh run. It doesn't name a specific alternative tool for generating an analysis, so it is clear but not fully routing-complete.

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