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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful definitional context about what qualifies as 'freed up capacity' and the 12-month window. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size behavior, so it adds only moderate value beyond 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?

Two sentences: the first defines the population, the second states the use case. Front-loaded, zero filler, every clause 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?

With a full output schema and 100%-covered parameters, the description need not explain returns or args, and it covers purpose and scope adequately. The one missing piece is differentiation from the near-identical siblings in the board/director family.

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% — limit, skill, and sector are each documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no default, no combination guidance), so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (directors who recently freed up board capacity) and defines its scope precisely — resignations, retirements, reduced workloads, last 12 months. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like search_board_candidates, get_board_vacancies, or get_director_workload.

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 one usage context ('identify available director talent for board recruitment'), which is a real when-to-use signal. However, it offers no when-not-to-use and no routing to the obvious alternatives (search_board_candidates, get_board_vacancies), leaving the agent to guess which sibling to pick.

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