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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: hop values are served verbatim from registers, never synthesized; chains terminate at individuals with a terminal reason; per-register coverage notes are included. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then explains parameters and behavioral guarantees in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, the traversal behavior, the termination condition, and the data provenance guarantee. It doesn't describe the exact output shape, but with no output schema and a clear behavioral description, this is adequate. A minor gap is not stating what happens when no chain is found, but that's not critical.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the semantics of threshold ('minimum ownership percentage a chain must keep to be followed') and max_depth ('caps the number of hops'), and clarifies node_id is the graph node id from search_companies hits, not entity_id. This is above the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Takes', 'Served', 'followed') and resource ('upward ownership chains of one company, composed across registers and cited hop by hop, with per register coverage notes'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like company_profile or search_companies by focusing on ownership chains and graph node ids.

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?

Explicitly says 'Takes node_id, the graph node id from search_companies hits' and contrasts with 'Not the entity_id of company_profile' in the schema. It also explains threshold and max_depth semantics, and notes that chains terminate at individuals with a stated terminal reason. This gives clear when-to-use and what-to-avoid guidance.

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