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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description adds scope detail (liquidation/receivership associations, risk level), but says nothing about data freshness, coverage limits, or what an unknown slug yields – and with an output schema present, the payload list is partly redundant.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the usage cue last. No filler, though the enumeration of returned artifacts is somewhat redundant with the output 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-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The one real gap is sibling disambiguation across the many get_director_* tools.

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?

One required parameter at 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains the slug format with an example. The description adds no slug syntax, lookup behavior, or resolution guidance, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get a director's full company history and failure rate') with an enumerated payload: NZX board positions, biographical mentions, failed-company associations, failure rate percentage and risk level. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_director_risk, get_director_detail, get_company_directorships or get_director_due_diligence.

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 final sentence gives explicit trigger intents: 'track record, past boards, failure rate, or corporate history.' That is clear context for when to reach for this tool, but it offers no exclusions or alternative routing despite a large overlapping director-tool family.

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