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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds useful content about what the analysis includes (sentiment, conviction, hedging, key themes), but it does not disclose operational behavior such as rate limits, data freshness, or historical coverage beyond the year parameter.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It avoids repetition and waste, though it could be slightly tighter by merging the LIS and content sentences.

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 values need not be explained in the description. With read-only annotations and complete parameter descriptions, the definition is largely self-contained. It could mention whether the analysis covers historical AGMs by default or requires the year filter, but otherwise it is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 the schema already documents ticker, role, and year. The description does not add syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get AGM speech analysis for an NZX company.' It also clarifies the analytical content (LIS, sentiment, conviction, hedging, key themes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agm_resolutions or get_agm_notice_draft. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other language-analysis siblings such as get_disclosure_language or get_transcript_diffs.

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?

It gives a usage context: 'Use for governance quality and management communication analysis.' That implies when the tool is relevant, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related questions. The guidance is present but minimal.

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