scan_competitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning results and strategy breakdown, including 'Creative Tagger analysis' and 'estimated spend'. It implies a read-only scan with no destructive effects. However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or auth requirements. Overall, it provides good behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence captures the core action and outputs; the second adds input guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains inputs and outputs well, including strategy breakdown. However, it could mention the structure of the return value (e.g., JSON format) given the absence of an output schema. Still, it provides sufficient context for agent invocation.

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 only 14% (brand_name has a description). The description compensates by clarifying that page_id, page_name, or keyword are alternative inputs. It explains brand_name attaches to saved history. However, limit, country, and analyze_creatives are not explained beyond their defaults. The description adds some value but not full coverage.

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 it scans competitor ads from Meta Ad Library, returns classified results and strategy breakdown. It specifies inputs (page_id, page_name, or keyword) and outputs (ad metadata, Creative Tagger analysis, strategy insights). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_creative (individual analysis) or get_competitor_scan_history (history retrieval).

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 says 'Provide page_id, page_name, or keyword' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_creative or get_competitor_scan_history. No when-not-to-use guidelines are provided. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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