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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists output content, not behavior. It does not disclose data source, recency, locale effect, pagination, error behavior, or whether this is a read-only snapshot. 'Roster' implies static information but adds little beyond what the name already signals.

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 a compact noun phrase with no wasted words and the key scoping term 'per-stock' is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse given the lack of annotation coverage, but as a concise summary it scores well.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter docs, the description must provide more context. It leaves the agent without guidance on stock code format, locale semantics, or how this roster differs from related director tools, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the result is per-stock, which maps to stock_code, but it never explains stock_code format or the locale parameter, which has a default of zh-CN and could affect language or content. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently fill both parameters.

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 resource ('per-stock director and executive roster') and the contained data fields (names, bio, roles), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_director_changes. It lacks an explicit action verb, but the tool name 'get' plus 'roster' makes the read operation clear.

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 phrase 'per-stock' implies this tool is for a single stock's directors and executives, and it is implicitly contrasted with broader or change-focused siblings. However, it never explicitly says when to use this over get_director_changes or other corporate-governance tools, and gives no exclusions.

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