get_owner_ecosystems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the result (owners with multiple agents) and defines ecosystem criteria, but does not disclose authorization needs, side effects, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by the 'get' prefix but not explicit.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences and an Args section. The purpose is front-loaded, and every line earns its place. No redundant information.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameter, and a usage hint. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains the 'limit' parameter with its purpose and default value. This compensates entirely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 returns owners operating multiple connected agents, defines 'ecosystem', and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual agents or relationships. The verb 'Return' and specific resource ('owners with multiple agents') make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Useful for finding multi-agent teams', providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or compare it with siblings like 'get_agent_relationships' or 'search_agents', which could further guide selection.

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