scan_competitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a monetary cost, which is useful, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether the operation is read-only or mutative. The description is insufficient for a tool with potential financial implications.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by cost and service details. However, the second sentence about cost and service feels somewhat disconnected from the main purpose and could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (competitor analysis with financial cost), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits essential details like parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, and expected outputs, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (company, url, focus) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they influence the scan. For example, it's unclear if 'focus' expects specific values like 'pricing' or 'features' from the listed scan areas.

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 performs a 'full competitor scan' covering pricing, features, messaging, funding, strengths, and weaknesses, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'company_lookup' or 'compare_trends' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost of $0.010 USDC and service 'compwatch', but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for different scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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