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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return content (reason, Act/section, period, company names), which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't mention auth/rate limits, but those are not critical given the read-only, simple nature.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, return details, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most important action is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what data it returns, and how to get the required ID. No significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for officer_id with a clear description (Companies House officer ID, returned by disqualified_search). The description repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 fetches a full disqualification record for a director by officer ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dd_disqualified_search (which searches) and dd_charity_profile (which handles charities). The verb 'Fetch' and resource are explicit.

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 instructs 'Use disqualified_search first to find the officer ID', establishing a clear prerequisite and directing the user to the correct sibling tool. This provides both when-to-use context and an alternative, leaving no ambiguity about the required prior step.

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