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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the output includes 'dates and reasons', which is useful for understanding what the tool returns. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional detail about dates and reasons is concise and relevant. Every word earns 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema. The description covers what it does and the nature of the output (dates and reasons). It does not mention pagination or usage scenarios, but given the output schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic call pattern.

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 parameters (to, from, limit, action, ticker) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond mentioning that results include dates and reasons, which relates to the from/to parameters but does not expand on syntax or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'Get', the resource 'director appointment, resignation, and retirement events', and the scope 'for an NZX company'. It further clarifies that it shows 'board composition changes over time with dates and reasons', distinguishing it from siblings like get_directors (which likely lists current directors) and get_director_detail (specific director info).

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 implies usage for historical board changes via 'over time', but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit routing to siblings like get_directors for current composition, so guidance is only implied, not stated.

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