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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the union of source platforms (NZXplorer, CharityData, IwiData, PublicData) and the concrete node/edge vocabulary, which tells the agent the scope of the result set.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the return shape, use cases, and input convention. The node/edge enumeration is slightly dense but informative rather than padded, and nothing reads as 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 an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope and usage, which it does well. The remaining shortfall is the absence of any disambiguation from sibling network/graph tools, which a consumer in this large namespace would benefit from.

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%, including the type/depth enum-like values and identifier format, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the slug-vs-ticker convention already documented in the schema and adds nothing about how depth or type interact with results, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (cross-platform entity relationship graph) and defines the exact node and edge types returned, so the agent knows precisely what this produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many structurally similar siblings (get_knowledge_graph, get_director_network, get_company_connections, get_network_intelligence), which the description never mentions.

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?

Explicitly lists when to reach for it: questions about a person's full governance footprint, cross-platform connections, or company relationship maps, plus how to format the identifier per entity type. It stops short of any when-not guidance or naming an alternative sibling, which is a real gap given how crowded this namespace is with network/graph tools.

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