get_sector_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the paid tier requirement and that it returns all companies and edges, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or potential side effects. As a read-only operation, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with a clear summary, a critical note, structured parameter list, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the layout is easy to scan.

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?

Given two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a key limitation (paid tier). It lacks details on response format or error handling, but for this tool's complexity, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section with example values for sector and clarifies that relationship_types is an optional comma-separated filter. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides parameter names and types.

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 tool retrieves the full relationship subgraph for a sector, using 'Get' as the verb and specifying the resource as 'full relationship subgraph' for a sector. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual companies (get_company_profile, get_supply_chain) or path finding (find_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?

The description notes a prerequisite ('requires a paid tier') and provides an example usage. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, the context ('entire sector') implies it's for sector-level analysis, and sibling tools are clearly for different scopes.

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