board_interlock_path

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by explaining the traversal behavior (walks SHARES_DIRECTOR edge, returns alternating company chain and director per hop) and the abstain condition when no path exists. This provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a bolded usage warning, and an illustrative example. It is slightly verbose but every section adds value, making it an efficient and purposeful text.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, the domain insight about always-connected boards, the traversal behavior, and the abstain condition, making it complete for a graph traversal tool with minimal complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. The example ('board_interlock_path("AAPL", "JPM")') clarifies from_company and to_company, but max_hops is only implicitly referenced ('within max_hops'), without explaining its meaning or default. The parameter semantics are partially covered but not fully explicit.

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's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Name the director(s) who bridge two companies' boards.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing that the output is the bridging director, not the path's existence, which distinguishes it from tools like control_chain or influence_map.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (find the bridging director) and when not to (don't use it to test connectivity, since it's essentially always connected within 4 hops). It does not name alternative tools but offers a clear contextual warning that shapes usage appropriately.

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