find_serp_competitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions output categories (sites vs. large platforms) but does not describe any side effects, permissions, data limits beyond the 10-query cap, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that lacks annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence in Russian that conveys the core function without fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it could be structured into bullet points for clarity, but as is, it is appropriately brief.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the return value structure, or when to invoke this tool relative to competitors. An agent would lack crucial information to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has two parameters (region and queries) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions the query count limit (up to 10) but does not explain the meaning of 'region' or the exact format/content of 'queries'. Since the schema provides no defaults or descriptions, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 states a specific purpose: identifying search competitors that recur across a set of queries (up to 10), and distinguishes them into sites and large platforms. It is clear about the resource (SERP competitors) and the action (find), but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it falls short of a top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_competitor_keywords or get_competition. The description implies a use case (analyzing repeat competitors across queries) but gives no explicit context, conditions, or exclusions.

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