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 discloses important behavioral traits: bearer-auth and FO-gating, refusal for natural-person sole traders without FO addendum, and minimization of UBO data (birth year only). It also notes validity windows and public-official flags, adding context beyond the schema.

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 long but every sentence carries distinct information: composition, comparison to a sibling, and access restrictions. It is front-loaded with the core function and structured to communicate efficiently despite its length.

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 the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's capabilities, data layers, and access constraints. It provides a comprehensive mental model for an agent to decide invocation, including caveats about FO-gating and data minimization.

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 schema already covers both parameters (ico and purpose), but the description deepens understanding by explaining when purpose is required (full-tier keys with natural-person subjects) and explicitly excluding marketing/prospection as a valid value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Full relationship graph for one company' and enumerates the specific data types (directors, shareholders, UBO, related companies, M&A). It explicitly contrasts itself with get_company_network, which distinguishes its scope from a sibling tool.

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 usage guidance: 'Use get_company_network to walk company→company hops, use this to enumerate a single company's owners and officers.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over its sibling.

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