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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful context beyond it: the upstream source (annual securities report), that amounts are in yen, and that the ¥100M+ named-officer list is consolidated-basis while the by-category aggregates are not. It does not state what is returned when compensation is undisclosed, which is the main remaining gap.

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 lead sentence and the resource enumeration are well front-loaded, but the text then repeats everything in Japanese and appends a two-sentence date-formating boilerplate twice (ISO 8601 UTC, add 9 hours for Japan time) that is irrelevant here — the schema has no date-time fields and results are keyed by fiscal year. A substantial fraction of the description does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right work by enumerating the returned blocks (totals, by-type breakdown, head-count, named officers) and the unit (yen), so an agent knows what comes back. It falls short only on edge-case handling such as companies with no disclosed compensation or partial disclosures.

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 both symbol and fiscalPeriod fully documented including format and the 'omit for latest annual report' default, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves, so 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?

The description names the exact resource and enumerates its contents: total remuneration, by-type amounts (base, bonus, stock options, performance-linked, non-monetary), head-count per officer category, and named officers earning ¥100M+. This is far more specific than the title, and the 'annual securities report' source makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_directors (roster) or get_audit_fees.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for pay levels because the description states the source document and the exact data returned. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of how this differs from get_directors or where compensation data is unavailable, so the agent must infer the routing.

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