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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that—no mention of result caps, pagination, default lookback windows, or data freshness—leaving it as pure purpose restatement.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the entity type and followed by the filterable dimensions. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

Annotations cover safety and the schema fully documents inputs, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what results contain or how many are returned by default. For a nine-parameter search tool, that is adequate but thin.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description names a subset of them (role, change type, company, date range) but adds no syntax, enum values, or defaults beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('executive appointments and departures'), which cleanly separates it from sibling searches over acquisitions, funding rounds, SEC filings, etc. An agent can identify the entity type without opening the schema.

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 lists filter dimensions but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or from alternatives like get_watchlist_changes or search_major_events. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and filters.

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