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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: the traversal is bounded by depth, results are per-connected-company, and each result carries name, number, status and shared directors. It does not mention result volume or pagination behavior, which would matter for depth 2.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return shape then use cases. No sentence is redundant and the scoping constraint appears before the payoff detail.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, traversal semantics and returned fields well. It omits expected result volume/pagination for depth 2 and any guidance on choosing depth, which the schema only partially covers.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only echoes that traversals are 'up to the specified depth'; the depth semantics (1 = direct, 2 = connections of connections) and the zero-padding rule for company_number live entirely in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Map the corporate network connected to a UK company via shared directors') and immediately scopes it by the mechanism (shared directors) and domain (UK company). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_directors or get_company, which return entities rather than relationships.

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?

Gives clear use contexts – 'identifying corporate group structures, related party relationships, and director interlocks' – which tells an agent when this tool fits. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., for simple director listings use get_directors).

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