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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description meaningfully adds that the score is a weighted aggregation of six named inputs, telling the agent the output is a synthesized judgement rather than raw evidence.

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, front-loaded with the verb and score range, followed by the aggregation detail and the use case. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly points the agent to slug resolution. The only gap is any differentiation from the closest due-diligence siblings, which would round out routing.

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 the slug parameter's own description already tells the agent to resolve it via get_directors with a search param. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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), resource (NZ director), and output (composite risk score 0-100), then enumerates the six aggregated components. The composite-aggregation framing distinguishes it from the many single-signal siblings like get_litigation_history or get_regulatory_actions.

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 names three use contexts (director suitability, governance risk, board appointment due diligence), which is clear when-to-use guidance. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so an agent weighing this against get_director_due_diligence or get_board_health_score gets no routing help.

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