Get company network (shared-officer graph)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably: it reveals that the graph is walkable, that an empty result does not imply isolation and may indicate missing ingested data, and that natural-person sole traders are subject to FO gating. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return content, graph-walkability, empty-result interpretation, and auth caveat. Front-loaded with the main function, and 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains exactly what is returned (officers and connected companies with IČO) and handles edge cases (empty result, FO gate). It also provides the necessary context to use the tool as a network-walk primitive, making it complete for an API consumer.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, including detailed descriptions for both ico and purpose (e.g., FO-gate behavior, valid purposes, ignored for legal entities). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the FO-gate context already present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as a company-to-company network built via shared people, listing precise contents (current officers and other companies per officer). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_company_relations by explicitly naming it as the alternative for UBO/M&A edges, so the purpose is unique and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (primary network-walk primitive) and how to traverse further hops, while also giving a clear exclusion: empty result means try get_company_relations instead. This is explicit when/alternatives guidance.

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