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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with per-call cost ($0.002/call) and the scope of what the graph returns, though it says nothing about response size or traversal limits beyond depth.

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?

Efficient and front-loaded: it leads with the resource, then use cases, then cost, then exclusions. The opening is a fragment and the enumeration is dense, but every sentence carries information and none 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with a complete schema, the description adequately conveys what the graph contains so the agent doesn't need an output schema. It could go slightly further on result shape or breadth, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, with both asset_id and depth fully documented in the schema (including hop semantics and the `universe` cross-reference). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific resource (an asset's exposure graph) and enumerates its contents: suppliers, customers, countries, input commodities, regulators, indices, correlated assets, and facilities with coordinates. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like price_for, news_for, and events_since, which it explicitly rules out.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use cases (finding second-order trades like TSM → NVDA/AAPL, or knowing which regulators/countries to watch) and an explicit when-not-to-use clause ('not for prices or events'). This routes the agent away from wrong siblings.

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