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), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: output is pre-filled rather than blank, sourced cross-platform, and covers ~75-85% of a typical questionnaire, which tells the agent to expect partial completeness. It does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or cost.

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?

The purpose sentence leads, followed by a single long data-source list. The list is dense but each item is a genuinely useful signal of coverage scope. Slightly list-heavy, but front-loaded and free of padding.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still characterizes the payload and its completeness. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and clear annotations, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only usage routing to siblings 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (ticker, director_slug) are fully documented with format examples in the schema. The description reinforces that scope is one director at one company but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (Get) and a highly distinctive resource (a D&O insurance questionnaire) scoped to one director at one company, and enumerates what it aggregates. No sibling produces a questionnaire, so an agent can distinguish it immediately despite the crowded get_director_* namespace.

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 says what it returns but gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. It never distinguishes this from adjacent tools like get_director_detail, get_director_due_diligence, or get_director_risk, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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