discover_competitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are based on text-pattern heuristics and should be treated as an unverified candidate list, which sets expectations about result quality and completeness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first states the main action and method, the second provides an important caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool has a nested context object and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining input usage and output format. It mentions the output is candidate competitor names, which gives a basic understanding, but it doesn't detail the expected response structure or how to use the context fields, leaving gaps for more complex usage.

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 schema has a required nested 'context' object with multiple fields, but schema description coverage is 0% for top-level parameters. The description provides no guidance on how to set or use parameters like company, sector, country, or companyDomain, so the agent must infer entirely from the schema's sparse field comments.

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 searches industry-analyst and news sources for named competitors/rivals, using text-pattern heuristics to extract candidate names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_profile or search_company by specifying the exact action and output.

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 conveys clear context for when to use the tool: to discover candidate competitors as a starting list. It also cautions that results are not verified, guiding appropriate interpretation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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