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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds useful context beyond them: it describes entity-type-specific output and the rejection of id-less descriptions. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 front-loads the core purpose and keeps examples compact. The final sentence restates the id requirement already implied earlier, causing minor redundancy, but overall every part earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with annotations and a helpful dfx_id schema, the description gives adequate context for calling it. However, there is no output schema and no guidance on behavior when neither id is supplied, both are supplied, or what limit controls. These are significant enough gaps to prevent a higher score.

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 description coverage is only 33%: dfx_id is well-documented, but event_id and limit are not. The description reinforces that an id is required and maps entity types to expected outputs, which partially compensates. It still leaves event_id format and limit semantics undocumented.

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 clear verb and resource: given an entity or event id, return who is likely to care and why. Entity-specific examples (company transition, family office, venture firm, property) sharpen the scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling relationship/find tools, but the purpose is still clearly distinct.

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 gives an explicit constraint: it requires an entity or event id and does not accept a description of a situation without an id. This is a useful when-not condition. However, it does not name alternative tools or explain when to prefer this over siblings like find_capital_for_opportunity or relationship_path.

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