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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it defines status values, marks 'ceased'/'superseded' edges as historical, explains how a top-level dissolved flag overrides edge-level status, and discloses ordering behavior (active edges first). It also notes fuzzy name resolution and renaming.

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?

The description is relatively long but every sentence earns its place: connection types, status semantics, historical caveats, ordering, resolution, and output links are all compactly organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics; it does so in depth, including edge statuses, historical vs current classification, dissolved-company behavior, truncation ordering, and URL links. Together with the exhaustive behavioral notes, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about fuzzy resolution and former names, but it does not clarify how name and slug relate, which one is preferred, or what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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 verb and resource: 'Show companies directly connected to one Spanish company', and enumerates the three edge types (shared_officer, owns, owned_by). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_company or search_companies, which address single entities or searches.

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 a clear invocation context: use it to list direct corporate relationships for one company, and frames it as answering 'is there a relationship between company X and company Y?'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top level of the rubric.

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