Get company relations (directors, UBO, M&A)

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses auth requirements (Bearer-auth + FO-gated), the refusal for sole traders without FO addendum, the minimization of UBO data (birth year only), the legacy IČO keying limitation, and the public-official flag. This goes well beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes (content list, sibling differentiation, auth/limitation notes). It is longer than ideal but appropriately packed for a tool with this complexity. Slightly better structure (e.g., bullets) would make it a 5.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all return components (officers, UBO with validity windows, related companies, corporate shareholders with IČO resolution, M&A events). It also covers limitations, auth context, and parameter usage. This is complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: purpose is 'only needed for full-tier keys when the subject is a natural person', 'ignored for legal entities', and the IČO limitation is reiterated. This adds practical usage nuance beyond the schema definitions.

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 opens with 'Full relationship graph for one company' and enumerates exactly what is included (directors, shareholders, UBO, related companies, corporate shareholders, M&A events). It also explicitly contrasts with get_company_network, making the specific scope unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use get_company_network to walk company→company hops, use this to enumerate a single company's owners and officers.' It also states when the endpoint is not reachable (non-IČO markets) and the FO-gated auth conditions, clearly indicating appropriate use cases.

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