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

Annotations indicate readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints. The description adds valuable context: one record per disqualification entry, multiple entries per person across companies, UK registry sourcing, and a data-not-instructions disclaimer. No contradictions.

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 relatively long but every sentence provides useful information. It is well-structured with the main purpose first, followed by details. Could potentially be tightened but not to a degree that harms clarity.

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 without an output schema, the description fully explains pagination (cursor, hasMore), record structure (one per disqualification entry), and integration with other tools. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds extra value by explaining ISO 8601 date format with examples, cursor pagination mechanism, and default for activeOnly. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 browses disqualified directors ordered by most recent disqualification, specifies compliance monitoring and bulk review use cases, and distinguishes from sibling search_disqualified_directors which is for searching.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for compliance monitoring and bulk review, explains filtering by active status and date range, and advises combining with get_person/get_person_section via the returned 'ref'. Does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool, but context implies alternatives for specific searches.

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