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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by specifying what data sources it cross-references (director appointments, MP interests, auditor independence, councillor declarations), which helps an agent understand the tool's behavioral scope 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?

Three sentences, each front-loaded and purposeful: purpose, cross-referenced domains, then scoping instruction. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information appears first.

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, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, data sources, and the market-wide scope flag, which is nearly complete for a single-parameter conflict-detection tool. It could add a sentence on limitations or freshness, but no critical invocation information is missing.

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%, and the description's only parameter note ('Use ticker "all" for market-wide scan') simply restates what the schema already says. It adds no new syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the structured field, so the 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 ('Detect') and resource ('potential conflicts of interest in NZX capital markets deals'), and elaborates the exact cross-referencing domains. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as get_director_conflicts or get_auditor_red_flags, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 its use case by enumerating conflict types, and it tells the agent how to scope the ticker parameter. But it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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