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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the bidirectionality and output structure (nodes and links), but doesn't discuss rate limits, data freshness, or other behavioral traits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the bidirectional output. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical country list is a minor distraction.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns. It could be improved by mentioning when to use it versus siblings, but it is largely complete.

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 only 33%—only the 'name' parameter is described. The description does not elaborate on the semantics of 'limit' or 'country', leaving them undocumented outside the schema. Baseline for low coverage is 3 when the description adds no parameter meaning.

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 a verb-resource pair ('buyer ↔ supplier network around one organisation') and specifies the bidirectional scope: for a supplier, the agencies that buy from it; for an agency, its suppliers. It distinguishes itself from the sibling entity_network, which likely covers other entity types, though the difference is not explicit.

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—use this to explore procurement relationships for an organisation in the four listed countries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like entity_network, find_suppliers, or similar_awards.

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