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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: the free-plan scope and the fact that unpaid directors are listed separately from the paid table. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, with the free-plan qualifier front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by revealing a data-organization quirk that affects how results should be interpreted. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, safety annotations covering behavior, and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete for a correct call. The only meaningful gap is routing guidance relative to sibling compensation tools, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 ticker, agent_token, and fiscal_year. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's clarity. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource: non-employee director compensation and the board fee schedule, and the title adds 'free'. It distinguishes from broader siblings like get_company_compensation by scoping to non-employee directors. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the tool name for the action.

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 'Free plan' prefix gives context about access tier, and the unpaid-directors note clarifies a scoping edge. But it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over get_company_compensation or lookup_company_compensation, nor states exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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