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

Annotations declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: case-insensitive substring matching on name, the { data, total } return envelope, and the notion that rows carry only the matching role entries. It does not cover pagination/limit semantics, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage in the first two sentences. The closing glossary paragraph is long but arguably earns its place because there is no output schema to document the returned row keys. Still, it is denser than the input-parameter task strictly requires.

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 steps in to describe the return shape ({ data, total }), the row structure, and the meaning of each profile key including units (JUTAAN = millions) and currency fields. Missing only pagination/limit behavior and result ordering for full completeness.

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%, and the description compensates for the required 'name' parameter by specifying that matching is a case-insensitive substring. But it says nothing about the 'limit' or 'roles' parameters, leaving those to the schema; roles do carry an enum, so the schema does the remaining work. 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and a precise resource (IDX-listed companies connected to a person/entity), then enumerates the four relationship roles (shareholder, subsidiary, board, audit committee). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like Idx_search_companies or Idx_get_company, which operate on companies rather than on a person's ownership linkages.

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?

Provides an explicit use case in the agent's own query language: "which listed companies does X own / sit on the board of". That gives clear context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, so it misses the top of the scale.

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