competitive_intel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It enumerates the outputs, which is informative, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it performs live research, generates templates only, or has any limitations. It's transparent about the deliverable set but not about the process.

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?

One comprehensive sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists artifacts in a readable series. It's dense but not bloated; every deliverable earns its place. Could be slightly overwhelming, but structure is 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 (a package with many potential outputs) and no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates eight distinct deliverables, providing a good sense of scope. It doesn't explain how to use the results or the exact format, but for a package tool this is substantial coverage.

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%, so the params are already well-documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it lists outputs but doesn't map them to specific parameters. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the semantics.

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?

Clearly states it generates a competitive intelligence package with specific deliverables (battle cards, feature matrix, etc.). The verb 'Generate' plus resource 'Competitive Intelligence Package' is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like pmf_scorecard or launch_commander.

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 implies when to use it (when competitive intelligence artifacts are needed) but gives no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. Sibling tools cover different domains, but no guidance is provided for choosing this over them.

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