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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels: it discloses the 10-minute precomputation cycle, the presence of computedAt, validUntil and a stale flag, and the critical behavior that stale rows are withheld rather than served. It also clarifies semantic nuances about counterparties and components, which are easily misinterpreted.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('stock-settlement counterparty graph') before filling in specifics. Every clause adds value—aggregation fields, staleness handling, and semantic disambiguation—without redundant or filler words.

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 complexity of the graph tool, the description covers key aspects: what data is included, how it is aggregated, freshness, and semantic interpretation. It lacks explicit permission or rate-limit info (no annotations), but the absence of an output schema makes the detailed row-field listing more valuable. Slightly incomplete in operational details but strong overall.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, instead focusing on the response structure, which is appropriate given the lack of an output 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 identifies the tool as a stock-settlement counterparty graph, specifying the exact action (which wallets move tokenized equities to whom), the context (off-pool), and the aggregation details (per wallet with counterparty addresses, notional, concentration, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_equity_flows or get_bridge_flow, which focus on different data dimensions.

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 for analyzing off-pool tokenized equity settlement relationships, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the niche from the detailed purpose statement.

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