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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: person names are access-gated and FO data requires an attested purpose, which tells the agent about permission constraints it could not infer from annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope, then usage, then the access caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Scope, use case and data-gating are covered; the main remaining gap is sibling differentiation from get_company_relations and any hint about result size or traversal limits for the one-hop expansion.

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 the schema already documents ico, country and purpose thoroughly, including the country tie-break warning and the 'never guess purpose' instruction. The description adds only the 'one hop' traversal-depth hint, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (companies connected through shared officers or owners) and scopes it with '(one hop)', which is concrete and actionable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_company_relations, which sounds like it could cover similar graph traversal, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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 explicit use cases: 'group structure and beneficial-ownership tracing'. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there are no when-not conditions and no routing to alternatives such as get_company_relations or get_company_details.

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