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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's genuinely additive behavioural detail is the comparison universe (sector and market-cap peers) and that results are percentile-based against it. The remaining disclosure (percentiles, P25/P75, trend, assessment) restates output that the output schema already carries.

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, purpose and comparison scope front-loaded. The second sentence is largely a return-value inventory that the output schema already supplies, so it is slightly less economical than it could be, but nothing is padded or repeated.

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 one fully documented parameter, complete annotations and an output schema, the only genuine gaps are scope (NZX-only market) and routing versus sibling board tools. The description covers what the tool computes and against whom, which is enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already defines 'ticker' as an NZX symbol with examples. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, but it neither warns about unsupported tickers nor references the NZX-only scope.

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 ('Get quantitative board benchmarking') and pins the comparison universe to sector and market-cap peers, with the six dimensions enumerated. An agent can distinguish it from pure composition or health-score siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, so it never fully disambiguates within the crowded board-* family.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The neighbouring tools include get_board_health_score, get_board_effectiveness, get_board_composition_report, get_board_skills_matrix and get_compensation_benchmark, and nothing in the description tells the agent which of these this replaces or complements. Usage is only inferable from the 'benchmarking vs peers' framing.

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