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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful provenance context the annotations cannot: the figures are AI-extracted from director biographies and the ages are 'estimated', warning the agent that the data is inferential rather than reported.

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, zero filler, with the core output list front-loaded and the data-provenance caveat placed last where it belongs. 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers subject matter and data reliability well; only minor gaps remain, such as whether results cover the full board or a period, and no guidance on ticker validity or error cases.

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?

Only one parameter (ticker) with 100% schema description coverage including worked NZX examples ('FPH', 'AIR', 'MEL'). The description confirms the scope is a single company but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get board demographics for a company') and then enumerates the exact data domains returned — ages, international experience, professional body memberships, career length, gender split. This is far more informative than sibling names like get_board_composition_report or get_directors, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. With dozens of adjacent board/director tools in the sibling list, an agent gets no help deciding between this and get_board_skills_matrix, get_board_credentials, or get_director_detail.

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