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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result 'can include' optional categories, but it does not clarify default behavior when the include parameter is omitted or explain any other behavioral nuances such as pagination or response size.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the relevant optional content. There is no filler or redundant elaboration; every clause contributes useful information.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, the description is mostly adequate for a simple read tool. However, for an agent choosing among many similar sibling tools, it would benefit from clarifying how the aggregate response relates to specialized getters and what happens when the include parameter is not supplied.

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 the ticker and include parameters are already fully documented with examples. The description reinforces the include categories but adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as default values, validation rules, or behavior when include is absent.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed info for a specific NZX company by ticker.' It also lists the data categories included (directors, financials, governance score, stock price), which helps distinguish it from narrower sibling tools like get_directors or get_financials, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 that this tool is appropriate when you need broad company detail by ticker, and the 'Can include' phrasing hints at selecting categories. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this aggregate tool over the many specialized getter siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback conditions.

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