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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: credit cost (15, and an unpublished root is free), an authentication constraint, truncation signaling, a warning that missing links are not negative findings, and that individuals are excluded. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then caveats and costs follow in terse sentences with no filler. It is dense and slightly telegraphic, but each sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers cost, auth, network limits, and interpretation caveats. The main gap is the undocumented kind enum and entity_id, which leaves the primary input under-specified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies depth (1–3) and the node cap tied to limit (≤100 nodes), but leaves the 7-value kind enum and entity_id entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 and resource with scope: "Investigate recorded corporate ownership, title and agency relationships." Clear what the tool returns (a relationship network around an entity). However, it does not name the near-sibling actor_path or the ownership_by_* tools, so an agent must infer the boundary between this and other relationship tools.

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?

Gives operational conditions (authenticated account required, no anonymous preview key, depth 1–3, ≤100 nodes) but never states when to pick this tool over actor_path or entity_relationships. Usage is only implied from the ownership/agency framing.

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