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

The description says the tool 'generates' graphs, implying a non-mutating analytical operation, and it discloses the credit cost per run. It does not explain side effects, authentication needs, or what openWorldHint means, but the cost disclosure and generation framing provide some transparency beyond the minimal annotation.

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 one focused sentence followed by a compact structured pricing block. There is no filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and well-documented pid field, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. The main gaps are lack of explicit alternative guidance and deeper behavioral context, but these are partially offset by the clear purpose and rich schema.

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 single parameter pid is fully documented in the schema with a source tool and concrete example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Generates') and identifies a clear resource: global multi-tier supply-chain graphs. It also clarifies the scope (enterprise and product dependencies), which distinguishes it from close siblings like sg_chokepoint and supply_chain_risk_prediction.

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 description implies the use case of visualizing supply-chain dependencies, and the parameter schema adds a prerequisite (pid obtained from search_company_candidates). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling visualization/analysis tools or provide exclusions.

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