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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the report returns risk flags and benchmarking against the NZX Code and sector averages, telling the agent what kind of analysis comes back.

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 purpose followed by analysis scope and trigger conditions. The long nine-item enumeration is dense but each item genuinely delimits the report's coverage, so little is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still signals the risk-flag and benchmark outputs. Combined with full annotation coverage and a single well-documented parameter, the definition is complete enough to invoke 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?

Only one parameter (ticker) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it with examples. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a comprehensive board composition analytics report for an NZX company') and enumerates the nine analysis dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_board_benchmark or get_board_skills_matrix, which is the only gap.

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 final sentence gives an explicit trigger list (board composition, governance quality, board diversity, succession planning, nomination committee analysis), which is strong positive guidance. It offers no when-not conditions or named alternatives despite heavy sibling overlap.

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