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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is only obligated to add context. It does: the output is '~80% complete' and is intended for company secretary review, which is a genuinely useful quality/trust disclosure an agent would not get from the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then content scope, then use trigger — no filler or marketing language. Minor overlap between 'Generate an automated draft' and 'Produces ~80% complete draft', but nothing wasteful enough to penalize further.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. For a one-parameter generator, the description covers what it produces, how complete it is, and when to invoke it — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single ticker parameter, so the schema fully documents it and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields carry the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Generate an automated draft Notice of Annual Meeting') plus the exact jurisdiction (NZX company). It also enumerates the substantive content the draft covers (re-election rotation, auditor re-appointment, fee pool, capital raise ratifications), which cleanly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_agm_resolutions or predictive ones like predict_agm_outcome.

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?

Gives a clear use trigger: 'Use when asked about AGM preparation, meeting notices, director re-election, or proxy forms.' That is strong contextual guidance, but it names no alternative tool and does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. a proxy forms request against a different sibling).

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