get_rival_ad_networks

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds the response-state taxonomy (found, no_file, unreachable, no_site) and a 14-day retention window, which are useful behavioral details not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first states the core resource and DIRECT/RESELLER markers, the second enumerates possible states, and the third gives retention. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the possible return states and retention, and annotations cover safety. It does not detail the returned network fields (e.g., network name/type shape), but for a read-only lookup it is largely complete.

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 100%, and the schema already documents appId, rivalId, and platform with its default. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource—ad networks a rival works with—and adds the DIRECT/RESELLER distinction, clearly separating it from broader siblings like get_rival_detail or get_rival_market. An agent can select it from the sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

It does not state when to call this versus get_rival_detail, get_rivals, or any other rival tool, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource description.

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