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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns complete active and resigned rosters, official dates, nationalities, roles, and a small payload size (<2 KB). 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool retrieves, what it returns, and when to call it. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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 description covers source, return content, and practical use cases, while annotations and the rich schema cover safety and parameter behavior. It is complete enough for a competent agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could offer explicit alternative routing among UK siblings.

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%, with each parameter already documented, including companyNumber format and forceFresh/maxAgeHours caching behavior. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Retrieves' and the resource: statutory board of directors, corporate secretaries, and officers from UK Companies House. This is a distinct purpose from sibling tools like get_uk_company_filing or get_uk_corporate_network, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says 'Call this for director background checks, executive vetting, and PEP conflict audits,' which gives clear contexts for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the stated use cases are practical and specific enough.

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