scout_competitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('list of competitors with positioning, pricing, strengths, weaknesses'), which adds some context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks critical details such as data sources, accuracy limitations, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and return values in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 tool's complexity (competitor analysis) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and output format, but without annotations, it misses behavioral context like data reliability or usage limits. For a tool with no annotations and moderate complexity, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema helps mitigate some gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters (company_or_product and max). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as formatting nuances or examples. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Find and analyze competitors for any company or product.' It specifies the verb ('Find and analyze'), resource ('competitors'), and scope ('any company or product'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scout_company or scout_product, which likely have related but distinct purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., scout_batch, scout_market, scout_trends) or clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. Without such context, users must infer usage from tool names alone, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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