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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level detail that the response is organized by process stage with company roles, but says nothing about response size, coverage limits, or what happens when a chain has no mapped companies.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler and the return shape stated immediately. It is efficient, though so terse that it reads more like a subtitle than an instruction set.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented schema, the definition is serviceable but thin. With no output schema in play, the description should carry more of the return-value burden than a single sentence does.

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 100% for the single required 'slug' parameter, and the schema description already points at list_value_chains as its source. The description adds no further guidance on the identifier, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a concrete resource and scope: the full map of a single industry value chain, broken down by process stage with the listed companies and their roles. The word '전체 지도' implies it differs from the sibling get_value_chain_position, but the contrast is never made explicit.

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 when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the overview call rather than a single-company lookup purely from the word '전체' in the description.

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