find_competitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions analysis aspects (franchise ratio, market entry potential), it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns, whether it performs data aggregation, how analysis is conducted, or any limitations. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and analysis scope. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, it could be more front-loaded by immediately stating it's for competitor analysis rather than starting with 'search and analyze surrounding competitors'.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis output looks like, how the franchise ratio and market entry potential are calculated or presented, or any limitations of the analysis. The agent needs more context to understand what to expect from this tool's results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions analysis aspects but doesn't connect them to specific parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'search and analyze surrounding competitors' with specific analysis aspects mentioned (franchise ratio, market entry potential). It uses specific verbs ('search', 'analyze') and identifies the resource ('competitors'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_commercial_area' or 'get_business_trends' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 the sibling tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over 'analyze_commercial_area' or 'get_business_trends'. The agent receives no help in selecting between these potentially related tools.

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