Find Related Companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context such as the heavier owner-graph traversal and the meaning of each via type, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, and includes concrete usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides enough context for a read-only query tool: clear purpose, via options, and use cases. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Minor gap is lack of note on result ordering or pagination, but it's not critical.

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 75% with detailed descriptions for via, orgnr, and min_overlap. The description itself does not add significant parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without adding much extra value.

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 the verb 'Find companies related to the given orgnr' with specific relation mechanisms (shared persons, shared address, shared ultimate owners). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the via options and use cases.

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?

The description gives explicit use cases: cluster analysis, hidden-relation detection in DD, fraud-pattern research. It also notes that the 'owner' via is heavier, implying preference for lighter options. No explicit when-not or alternative tools are named, so a 4 is appropriate.

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