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

With openWorldHint=true, the tool may have external side effects, but the description doesn't disclose what those are. It only mentions pricing (which is useful) but lacks details on persistence, external calls, or irreversible actions. No contradiction, but minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 very concise—one sentence plus pricing. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids fluff. However, given the complexity of the tool and its sibling context, a slightly longer description with usage guidance would be more helpful without being verbose.

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?

The output schema exists and the parameter is fully documented, but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral context (e.g., when to use this over other supply-chain tools, any prerequisites beyond pid). It's adequate for a simple read-like tool, but the openWorldHint suggests more context could be needed.

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 fully describes the single pid parameter, including its source and an example. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: generates global multi-tier supply-chain graphs with full dependency visibility. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like supply_chain_risk_prediction or sg_chokepoint, which focus on analysis or risk rather than visualization.

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 implies usage by mentioning the pid input comes from search_company_candidates, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no guidance on scenarios where visualization is preferred over reports or risk prediction, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names.

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