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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds valuable context by disclosing that exact homonyms merge (potential data caveat), that the result is a name not an individual, and that withdrawn profiles lead to an explicit refusal. These are behaviors not covered by annotations, adding to transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose (list mandates) early, then provides necessary caveats about identity and privacy. Every sentence adds value, with no wordiness. The structure flows logically from purpose to important nuances.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the key aspects an agent needs: what it returns (mandates with role, status, co-officers), the name semantics, and edge cases (homonyms, withdrawn profiles). There's a minor gap: it doesn't specify if the result is a list or a single object, but the semantic clarity compensates.

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 schema already describes the 'name' parameter well, including examples and the alternative slug format. The description reinforces this by explaining the name is as published in the register and how identity works. Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is a simple string, the description adds context on the semantic meaning of the name, which is valuable.

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 retrieves all Swiss company mandates for a person by name, listing roles, status, and co-officers. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a person's mandates, not companies or events, and explicitly notes the identity is a name, not a verified individual.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a person's mandates and co-officers. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined. For instance, it hints that for company-centric queries, one might use get_company instead, but this is not explicit.

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