get_rival_detail

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses real operational behavior: the keyword list consumes one keyword spy from the monthly allowance, stays open for 30 days, and degrades to `locked: true` figures when the allowance is exhausted. This quota and fallback semantics are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the quota/expiry caveat. Dense with parentheticals but every clause carries information; only slight tightening is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the return-value burden, enumerating the fields returned and the locked-state variant. Combined with annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so appId, rivalId, country, and platform are all documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirect meaning (the storefront scoping that country resolves to) and nothing about parameter formats or defaults beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one rival of your app in one storefront) plus the exact payload: name, rating, rating count, 90-day history, and ranked keywords. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool get_rivals and the aggregate get_rival_market.

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 single-rival, single-storefront scope implies when this is the right call versus get_rivals (list) or get_rival_market, and the quota/expiry note tells the agent the cost of invoking it. However, it never explicitly states the alternative to use when you want many rivals or an aggregate view, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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