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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds non-obvious semantics: unconfirmed leads never count as disclosed exposure, and restricted publishers expose only headline/date/link. These are real behavioral constraints beyond the structured fields, though return shape/pagination behavior is not described.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core read action and followed by defaults and constraints. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 sketches the returned evidence fields and the trust-tier defaults/opt-in model. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though tier enumeration semantics could be tighter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps the default tier set to 'filings, company releases and calls' and explains includeLeads via 'explicit opt-in', but the 'reported' enum value is never addressed and the symbol pattern/format is not discussed, leaving gaps in a 3-param schema.

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 ('Read') and resource ('source-attributed company relationships') and enumerates the payload contents (original-language evidence, dates, claim type, corroboration). It is distinguishable from the graph/paths siblings mainly by the evidence/attribution emphasis, though the description never names them explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear default-scope guidance ('Defaults to filings, company releases and calls') and states the condition for the non-default path ('Unconfirmed leads require explicit opt-in'). It does not state when to prefer this over company.supply_chain_graph or company.supply_chain_paths, so no explicit alternatives are named.

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