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 elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral context is the NZX scope, which is modest value on top of structured data already present.

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 waste: the capability statement leads and the routing sentence follows. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, content, and triggers adequately; the only residual gap is distinguishing this tool from the semantic overlap with sibling committee/board-composition tools.

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%, with each of the four filters (limit, sector, ticker, committee) self-documented including examples and the default/max for limit. The description adds no filter syntax, combination behavior, or default semantics beyond what the schema already states, so 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('board committee membership data') with the returned facets enumerated (chairs, committee types, composition) and the universe named (NZX companies). However, it does not differentiate itself from closely-named siblings such as get_select_committee_activity or get_board_composition_report, so the agent must still infer which one to pick.

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 'Use when user asks about...' sentence gives concrete trigger phrasings (audit committees, remuneration committees, committee chairs, board committee structure), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of any when-not or explicit alternative-tool redirection, so it is context without exclusions.

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