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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: walks up to 2 tiers, direction options, returns grouped companies and edges. References the UI view for familiarity. It does not explicitly state if it is read-only, but the action implies no side effects.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the main action and constraints. Every part is relevant and concise.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input (focal company), depth cap, direction, and output shape (grouped tiers + edges). It does not detail exact response format but provides sufficient guidance for selection.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds context about the return structure (grouped by tier plus edges) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: walk the supplier/customer graph from a focal company up to 2 tiers in up/down/both directions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company (single entity) and find_chokepoints (different analysis) by focusing on graph traversal.

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 explains when to use: to walk the supply chain graph with tier limits and direction control. It mirrors a specific UI view, providing context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the behavior is clearly defined.

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