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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint by disclosing data-coverage reality: which edge fields always appear, which appear only when the cited source states them, that attribute_withholding explains every gap, and that 1,924 of 20,684 records come from a licensed layer restricted to already-known organizations. Those are exactly the caveats an agent needs before treating a sparse edge as a negative finding.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and direction semantics before the coverage caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the final snapshot-count sentence is dense enough that it could be tightened without losing the caveat.

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 correctly does the work of explaining returned edge fields and their conditional population, plus a snapshot date for staleness. Missing only pagination/limit behavior and whether limit applies per organization, which matters for a tool accepting up to five org IDs.

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 60%, and the description adds real meaning for direction (the highest-value parameter) that the schema's bare enum lacks. The org identifier aliasing and the limit/default behavior are left to the schema, which documents org_ids and the ids well but says nothing about limit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Return supply-chain relationships for one or more organizations") and immediately explains what each direction value traces. That is enough to distinguish it from entity-oriented siblings at a glance, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 direction values are defined in operational terms — upstream = who supplies this entity, downstream = who depends on it, both = union — which tells an agent exactly which mode to pick. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or on how the results differ in cost or scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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