discover_competitors

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

The description discloses the heuristic extraction method, ranking signals (mention frequency and listed-company signal), and deterministic top-5 selection. This adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. No side effects or contradictions are present.

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 a single dense sentence, but it remains readable and contains substantive information about the process and output. It is concise without being overly terse, though the long em-dash clause slightly reduces clarity.

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 description explains the core workflow and output ('returns a top-5'), but it does not describe the expected output structure or clarify how optional inputs like sector, country, and listed affect results. Given there is no output schema, more detail about the return format would improve completeness.

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 description does not explain the required 'context' object or its properties. Schema coverage is low, with only some properties having descriptions, and the description adds no additional parameter guidance for fields like company, country, listed, or date. The agent must infer meaning from the schema alone.

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 function: searches industry-analyst and news sources for named competitors, extracts and ranks candidates, and returns a top-5. It also differentiates from similar tools by noting that the server deterministically picks peers instead of leaving selection to the calling model.

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 explains what the tool does and contrasts it with model-driven peer selection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like comparables_valuation or listed_peer_comparison. Some guidance is implicit, but explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions are missing.

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