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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple summary by explaining the meaning of derived.team_signal (0–100), mentioning the house_accounts_excluded field, and clarifying counting rules (e.g., 2–8 entities, shared house accounts excluded). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or auth requirements, the 'Surfaces' wording implies a read operation and the calculation details offer meaningful transparency.

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 two sentences and uses backticks for code references, making it visually clear. Every sentence contributes value: the first defines the tool's core purpose, and the second explains the signal's composition. It is concise, though slightly dense in technical detail.

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 that the tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description does a solid job of conveying what the response will contain: likely a list of entities plus derived.team_signal and house_accounts_excluded. It explains the key fields and data boundaries. It doesn't specify pagination, but for a signal lookup tool this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for entity_slug ('Stable kebab-case entity identifier.'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance or constraints, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Surfaces') and identifies a clear resource: other entities coordinated with the given one. It provides precise criteria (shared narrow seller account or co-owned exchange seat), which distinguishes it from the other signal_* tools that focus on different risk or score aspects.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The description explains what the tool does and the scope of its calculation, but it does not state when to use this tool over sibling signal tools or provide explicit alternatives. There is no 'when to use' guidance, only the natural inference from the purpose.

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