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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful analytical framing (failure rate, timeline, before/during/after relationship), but since an output schema exists this return-content detail is partially redundant and no auth or scoping caveats are disclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by what is returned. No filler, though the trailing 'Uses person slug' slightly duplicates the schema.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies enough scope and return-content context to call it correctly. Missing only explicit alternative-selection guidance.

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 coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that it 'uses person slug' without adding format or lookup-source detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource and clarifies that despite the company-oriented name, this is a person-centric lookup keyed by slug, returning struck-off/liquidated/receivership associations. An agent can distinguish it from company-level tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the many adjacent director-risk siblings, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (director due-diligence on failure exposure) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tools are named even though siblings like get_prohibited_directors, get_director_risk, and get_financial_distress overlap in scope.

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