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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive semantics, yet the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: verification dates are unknown (a data-quality caveat) and each upstream relationship category is capped at 500 (a hard result ceiling). It stops short of explaining pagination mechanics despite implying 'a page'.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the cap constraint and data caveat are stated crisply and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, result ceiling, and a data-quality caveat. The main omission is any sense of what a relationship record or page envelope looks like, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It translates the terse enum values (holds, heldBy, sites) into human terms (ownership, investment, facility), which is real added meaning, but it says nothing about slug format, limit, or offset beyond the implicit notion of a 'page'.

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 (Read) and resource (a company plus a page of relationships), and enumerates the relationship classes it returns. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_facility or search_infrastructure.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools or when not to use it. Usage can only be inferred from the verb 'Read' and the resource 'company'. No prerequisites or conditions are given.

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