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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the content of the returned graph and a per-call cost of $0.002, which matters for invocation decisions on an agent budget. It stops short of describing result shape or how large a depth=3 response can get.

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-loads the resource definition, then usage, then cost in three efficient moves with no filler. The long enumerative first sentence is dense but every item listed is a distinct return category an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating node types, including coordinates for facilities. It omits any indication of result size, structure, or stability, which is a minor gap for a graph-traversal tool with a depth cap of 3.

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 both asset_id (with example ids and a pointer to `universe`) and depth (hop meaning and default). The description's mention of 'second-order trades' loosely reinforces depth=2 but adds no syntax or semantics the schema lacks; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a specific resource (an asset's exposure graph) and enumerates its contents concretely: suppliers, customers, revenue/production countries, commodities, regulators, indices, correlated assets, facilities with coordinates. It is clearly not a generic lookup, but it never contrasts itself against the closest sibling, impact_for, which appears to serve overlapping analytical purposes.

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 two explicit use cases: finding second-order trades (event on TSM → NVDA/AAPL) and identifying which regulators/countries to watch for a holding. That is strong context, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool named for cases where a direct impact read is wanted instead.

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