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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered. The description adds genuinely useful content context — that the cited passage may describe roles at a different company and that conditions/dates must be preserved — but says nothing about what 'neighbours' returns or how invalid run/document/block coordinates behave.

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 action and the CIK scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The line-break/indentation formatting is slightly odd but does not impede comprehension.

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 presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool requiring four mandatory locator arguments with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves an agent unable to construct a valid call without trial and error.

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 0% across four required parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails it: only cik is obliquely covered via 'registrant CIK'. The crucial coordinate parameters run, document, and block — which determine which passage is returned — receive no explanation of what they are or where to obtain them.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a current leadership citation and neighbours') and ties it to a registrant CIK, which is enough to distinguish it as a passage-read tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby get_passage or get_leadership siblings, and the meaning of 'citation' and 'neighbours' is left for the agent to guess.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_leadership, get_passage, or get_leadership_passage's alternatives. The second sentence ('The source may describe roles in another company; retain conditions and dates') is a data-handling caveat, not selection guidance, so the agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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