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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: relationships with no GLEIF filing are reported as 'none reported' rather than errors, and the data source is open and keyless. This helps set expectations for missing data.

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 dense but well organized: it opens with the core action, names the data source, lists outputs, gives canonical questions, describes node contents, and closes with a critical missing-data behavior. Every clause earns its place without redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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, the description sufficiently explains returned data: parent, ultimate parent, direct children, total count, and node fields (LEI, legal name, jurisdiction). It also covers input modes, the limit behavior, and the meaning of missing relationships. Combined with the annotations, the tool is fully callable by an agent without lurking ambiguities.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that the query can be a name or LEI and notes the total count is always reported, but it does not materially expand on the schema for children_limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Map a company's corporate family tree from the GLEIF relationship register.' It clearly enumerates the outputs (direct parent, ultimate parent, direct children, subsidiary count) and distinguishes itself from simple entity lookups like lei_lookup by focusing on hierarchy relationships.

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 states when to use the tool: for 'who ultimately owns this company?' and 'what does this company own?' questions, and for due-diligence work. It provides input guidance (company name or LEI) but does not explicitly contrast it with similar sibling tools such as corporate_ownership_tree or beneficial_owner_screen, leaving some alternative-selection inference to the agent.

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