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). The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the output shape — nodes and links for a network diagram, including relation kinds and frequency — which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits filtering/pagination behaviour and how the entity name is matched.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the subject (linked people and organisations) and then the output form. No filler or repetition, though the length-to-information ratio is slightly strained by packing relation kinds, frequency and diagram structure into one clause.

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 usefully covers what the return looks like, and annotations cover safety. But for a three-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage it leaves parameter meaning, usage routing against siblings, and limits entirely unspecified, so an agent could still call it incorrectly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and does not. It never mentions the 'kind' enum (person/org), the 'limit' cap of 100, or how 'name' is interpreted — only a faint hint in 'one public figure or organisation'. The three parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific resource and what it returns — the people and organisations linked to one figure or organisation, with relation kinds and frequencies, as nodes and links. An agent knows what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate this from close siblings such as entity_timeline or procurement_network, which also operate on the same kind of entities.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given siblings like entity_timeline, procurement_network, party_profile and search_news, an agent gets no help deciding which tool fits a given question; it must infer from the tool name alone.

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