trace_ownership_path

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals critical behavior: max_depth is 'a REQUEST, not a PROMISE,' top hop is not necessarily UBO, and includes a measured example of depth capping (max_depth=6 returned as max_depth:2, depth_capped:true). It also discloses the standing caveat on `as_observed` dates, covering data-validity limitations.

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 long but every sentence carries unique information: purpose, use case, root source, critical warnings, response shape, and caveats. It is front-loaded with the main action, but the density makes it slightly less concise than shorter equivalents.

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 provides the full response shape (flat `hops` array with fields from/fromName/to/toName/role/share/source), key response fields (`hop_count`, `max_depth`, `depth_capped`), and interpretation guidance. It covers edge cases and data caveats, making it fully contextual.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete measured example and the instruction to fetch root from search_entities, enriching semantics but not fundamentally changing 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?

Description opens with 'Walk the ownership graph upward from a root entity and return the ordered hops' – a specific verb+resource+output. It further clarifies the use case with 'who ultimately controls X?' and distinguishes from general graph tools like graph_path.

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 states 'Use this to answer ''who ultimately controls X?''' and instructs 'Get the root id from search_entities.' It also provides detailed guidance on handling depth capping and verifying UBO, effectively telling the agent when to trust the result.

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