entity_ownership

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the kind of data returned (parent/children relationships) but does not mention read-only semantics, failure behavior, required identifier format, or whether results can be empty.

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 concise phrase with no filler or redundant information. It is easy to parse, though it is slightly too terse to fully carry the behavioral and usage context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about the return shape and edge cases. It names the three relationship types but leaves the agent guessing about structure, null cases, or how multiple children are represented.

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. It mentions that the input is an LEI but adds no format, length, validation, or example details beyond the schema's 'lei' property. The single parameter is simple, but the description does not meaningfully extend 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 identifies a specific resource (ownership relationships) and the input (an LEI), naming the exact outputs: direct parent, ultimate parent, and direct children. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_entity and find_entity, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose entity_ownership over siblings like get_entity or find_entity. The description offers no context for when an agent should prefer this tool for ownership information versus other entity-related tools.

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