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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: paths are built only from identity-grade or measured links, candidate links carry confidence below 0.5, and NOT_COVERED specifically means the layer has not computed the path rather than no relationship existing. This clarifies result semantics and data quality expectations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then detailing path components and finally clarifying confidence and NOT_COVERED semantics. It is dense but each sentence earns its place, and the structure flows logically from function to interpretation.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers path components, confidence, data quality, and the critical NOT_COVERED interpretation. It does not explicitly explain limit behavior or ordering, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly for a read-only operation.

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 67% with descriptions for dfx_id and kind; limit has constraints but no description. The description reinforces the kind concept through examples but does not enumerate valid values or explain how limit affects result pagination, so it adds only marginal 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 explicitly states the tool publishes capital flow paths through one institution and gives three concrete scenarios (allocators, lenders, properties). This distinguishes it from siblings like relationship_path by focusing on capital flows with specific path components and confidence, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage when the agent needs to trace capital flows through a specific institution, but it never explicitly contrasts with similar sibling tools like relationship_path or search_relationships, nor does it provide when-not conditions. The context is implied rather than stated.

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