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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the traversal algorithm (breadth-first over GLEIF Level 2), depth limiting, that depth is stated in the response, and that the ancestor chain is always walked to the top. These details give valuable insights into behavior without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and packs in necessary details like traversal method, depth handling, and alternative tool. No wasted words.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the response includes (ancestor chain, multi-level tree, depth stated) and provides usage examples. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only hierarchy exploration tool.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (LEI/name and depth semantics). The tool description reinforces but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool walks the full corporate ownership hierarchy, including ancestor chain and subsidiary tree. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_lei_relationships by noting when to use that alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'use get_lei_relationships instead when one hop (direct parent + direct children) is enough.' Also includes example queries that illustrate intended scenarios, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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