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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the simulation nature, mentions a caveat field, and details what the output reports: which companies lose a supplier, retained alternatives, and zero-alternative companies ranked first. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states what it does and the output, the second clarifies the simulation nature. Ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output. All parameters are covered. Among many sibling tools, it stands alone in its purpose. Could be slightly more explicit about which siblings complement it, but overall complete.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is high. The description adds the key constraint that exactly one of company_id/country/segment is required, and clarifies that limit sorts zero-alternative companies first. This adds value 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 clearly states it removes companies (single, country, or segment) from the supply graph and reports the blast radius. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like find_chokepoints or find_single_source_dependencies by focusing on removal simulation.

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 notes it's a documented-edge simulation, not a forecast, implying caution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_chokepoints or rank_by_connectivity, nor does it state prerequisites or scenarios.

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