discover_competitors

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description adds substantial process detail: source types, text-pattern extraction, ranking heuristics, and deterministic top-5 selection. It also clarifies that coverage is open-world and that candidate selection is not left to the calling model.

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?

A single dense sentence conveys source, method, ranking inputs, output cardinality, and determinism without filler. The action is front-loaded and every clause adds useful information.

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?

The behavior and output count are well described, but the description is not fully complete because it omits output shape and the meaning of the optional nested context parameters. Given no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, these gaps matter for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only implicitly covers 'company' and hints at a 'listed-company signal'. The nested context fields (date, sector, country, companyDomain) and their effect on the search are left undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 a specific action (searches industry-analyst and news sources), a specific resource (competitors/rivals of a company), and a concrete output (top-5). It also distinguishes itself from manual/model-driven selection by noting the server picks peers deterministically.

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 this is useful (when deterministic server-side competitor selection is desired rather than model-selected peers) but never gives an explicit condition or names alternative sibling tools. There are no when-not-to-use or fallback rules.

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