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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds substantial behavior: person nodes served only where person data is enabled and otherwise omitted with not_found, edges carry register citations with record type/identifier/URL/retrieval date, current edges ordered before closed ones, and a truncated flag on limit cuts.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the node's neighborhood is stated first, then sourcing, then person-data gating, then parameters. It is a long run-on paragraph, but nearly every clause carries non-redundant information.

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 takes on return-shape disclosure by naming the per-edge citation fields, ordering, and truncation behavior, plus the person-visibility caveat — everything an agent needs to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is already 100%, but the description still adds value by giving example edge type values (officer_of, owns), confirming limit's default/max of 200, and describing the truncated signal.

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 ('the register neighborhood of one node') and enumerates the edge classes returned (officers, shareholders, beneficial owners, holdings, branches), which cleanly separates it from siblings like company_profile and ownership_chain.

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?

Explains that node_id comes from search_companies hits or a previous network answer and that neighbor expansion works the same way, giving clear triggering context. It stops short of explicitly naming when a different sibling (e.g. ownership_chain) should be preferred.

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