get_domains_competitors_best_pages

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or destructive effects. The description simply restates the function without any such details. For a tool with 19 parameters and no output schema, this lack of transparency hinders safe invocation.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, conciseness sacrifices completeness and structure. It lacks any breakdown or organization that would aid understanding. It is not overly verbose, but the extreme brevity is detrimental to utility.

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 the high complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, 30 sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains, how the 'best' metric is defined, or how filtering works. The tool likely returns a list of pages with metrics, but this is omitted, making the tool almost unusable without external knowledge.

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?

Only 5% of parameters have descriptions in the schema (order_by). The description adds no additional parameter meaning. With 19 parameters including filters like total_traffic_min, positions_min, etc., the agent has no insight into how these affect results. The description should at least explain the role of key parameters or the expected input.

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 it gets 'best pages of competitors of domains', which indicates the tool retrieves top-performing pages from competitor domains. However, the term 'best' is vague and does not define the criteria (e.g., traffic, keywords). With many sibling tools (e.g., get_domains_top_pages, get_domains_competitors_keywords_best_pos), it is unclear how this tool differs, reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or under what conditions it is appropriate. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred. This omission leaves the agent without context for proper selection.

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