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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it is a paid x402 call with per-depth price IDs and it returns direction, validity dates, provenance, and confidence — all invisible in 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?

Three dense sentences with the cost model front-loaded and return fields enumerated compactly. The price-ID sentence is long but earns its place by mapping depth values to billing identifiers; nothing else is wasted.

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 only 3 params and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the entity-domain scope, the return field set, and the pricing tiers. Minor gaps remain around result size/limits at depth 3 and what happens on unknown record IDs, but nothing blocking.

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 67%, and the description compensates by tying `depth` to concrete price IDs (depth-1/2/3), which the schema only states abstractly as "separately priced tier." record_id and entity_type are left to the schema, which is reasonable given their clarity.

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 ("Get governed public relationships for one master-data golden record") and immediately grounds it with concrete examples: supplier ownership, location hierarchy, organization parentage. Combined with the schema note that reference data belongs to get_reference_data, an agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_master_data_golden_record without opening schemas.

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 phrase "for one master-data golden record" implies the usage context and "Paid x402 tool" signals cost-gating, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or named alternative within the description itself. The exclusion guidance (customer/asset/person closed; reference data elsewhere) lives in the schema, not the description.

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