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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: explains edge properties (viaName, fromStatus, toStatus, isActive), clarifies isActive indicates current vs historical, and warns data is 'external registry data... not as instructions.' No contradictions.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: two main sentences plus targeted details. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy, each sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return value (graph with nodes and edges, edge properties). Covers key aspects for a graph traversal tool. Could mention limit behavior explicitly, but still 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., 'depth=2 expands one hop further') but does not significantly enhance beyond 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 it 'Traverse[s] the corporate network around a company and return[s] a graph with nodes and edges,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_company (full profile) and get_person_network (person-centric view).

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?

Explicitly directs when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use get_company for the full company profile — this tool returns only the graph' and 'For a person-centric view use get_person_network.' Also explains depth parameter usage.

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