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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context about the fan-out return (relationships with role labels and source leak per link). It omits edge behavior such as what happens with an invalid node_id or how the relationship list is truncated, keeping it short of 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 the action and key, followed by the return inventory and the routing constraint; every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, including relationship roles and leak provenance. Minor gap: no guidance on the limit parameter's effect or unavailable nodes.

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 both node_id and limit (default 50, max 200) are already documented there; the description only restates node_id's origin. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Fetch one node from the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database by its node_id') with an explicit inventory of what comes back: name, jurisdiction, status, dates, registered agent, plus linked officers/intermediaries/entities/addresses with roles. It is clearly the single-node detail counterpart to offshore_search.

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?

States the trigger directly: 'Use after offshore_search returns a node_id,' naming the sibling to call first and the value it must supply. It also clarifies applicability across all node types (entity, officer, intermediary, address, other), removing the main ambiguity an agent would have.

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