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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a comprehensive aggregation spanning many data domains, and the schema note directs the agent to resolve the slug via get_directors first. No auth/rate-limit notes, but the breadth disclosure is genuinely useful 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scannable enumeration of report contents and a usage clause. The inventory is long but each item earns its place by defining the report's scope; no filler sentences.

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 explained, yet the description still previews the contents. For a single-param read-only tool scoped to NZX directors, nothing an agent needs for correct selection or invocation 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents the slug format and the workflow to find it via get_directors. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level, 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 ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive due diligence report for any NZX director') and then enumerates the exact contents (board positions, overboarding, remuneration, AGM voting, insider trading, GRS scores, performance, risk flags). This enumeration is detailed enough that an agent can distinguish it from granular siblings like get_director_detail or get_director_risk.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'when asked about a director's governance track record, suitability for board appointment, or comprehensive background.' Clear context is provided, but no when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. use get_director_detail for a lighter lookup) despite many adjacent director siblings.

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