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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: coverage is limited to relationships recorded by the verified owner or moderators and nothing is inferred, which tells the agent about data provenance and the possibility of empty or incomplete graphs.

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 tier marker is front-loaded, followed by one dense sentence covering scope, edge types and provenance. Every clause earns its place, though the enumeration-heavy sentence is long and could be split for faster scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned graph contents in both directions (owned edges and reverse edges). Combined with a fully documented required parameter and annotation-covered safety profile, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema fully documents the single 'listing' parameter (slug, exact name, FL-ID, or profile URL). The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('the recorded relationship graph of one company') and enumerates exactly what is included: founders, investors, parent companies, subsidiaries, products, services, partners, plus reverse edges. An agent can distinguish this from get_listing or compare_listings without inspecting either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement rather than stated: the agent can infer it should be called when a relationship graph is needed, and the 'Pro' marker signals a tier gate. However, no sibling is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when/when-not condition, so this stays at the implied-usage level.

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