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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses that a key on a running-watch account is required, that unmatched names and unresolved rows are returned alongside paths, that rows are dated quotes, and that usage is restricted. It leaves exact output formatting unspecified but provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 overly long and mixes technical behavior with legal licensing and philosophical language like 'It says who to ask, never who is harmed.' Useful information is present, but several sentences about compilation protection and reader key usage could be compressed without losing essential meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable amount of context: path semantics, authentication requirements, licensing, and resolution failure behavior. However, the hop-depth rule is ambiguous ('A second hop is a different relationship') and the exact return shape is never clarified, leaving notable gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful context by framing companies as 'the companies a reader buys from' and target as 'the subprocessor to look for,' but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 the core operation: given a reader's companies and a target subprocessor, return every path from those companies to that subprocessor, either directly or through a company's own list. This distinguishes the tool as a chain-traversal lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like named_by or resolve.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use in_chain instead of the sibling tools. The description mentions constraints like requiring a running watch and a key, but does not state the deciding conditions between in_chain and named_by, changes, or resolve.

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