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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds genuinely useful caveats beyond them: scores are ranking heuristics, chained percentages are proportional estimates rather than disclosed exposure, and results self-report search limits. This is substantive epistemic context for interpreting output, though auth or rate-limit behavior is not addressed.

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 what the tool returns, then direction, then caveats. Every sentence carries information and there is no padding, though the phrasing is terse enough that it borders on cryptic.

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?

For a 12-parameter, no-output-schema tool in a complex domain, the description leaves most of the surface unexplained: the filter semantics, defaults, and result pagination are not covered. It adequately frames the output caveats but not the invocation surface.

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?

With 12 parameters and only 17% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning but largely does not. It obliquely implies depth ('one to four hops') and direction ('monotonic seller-to-buyer or its reverse'), but the ten undocumented filters (roles, tiers, minPct, ranking, sources, minConfidence, limit, asOf) are never explained.

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 first sentence states a specific operation (explore one-to-four disclosed hops) and the payload per hop (source tier, reporting company, quote, filing), so the agent understands it returns chained supply-chain paths. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools company.supply_chain_graph and company.supply_chain_evidence, which likely overlap.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives, despite two adjacent supply-chain siblings. Usage can only be inferred from the description of the return shape, which is thin given three plausibly interchangeable tools.

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