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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only data-provenance context (NZX register vs Companies Office) and the slug-based lookup key, without discussing coverage limits, missing-data behavior, or freshness — modest added value above 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?

A single front-loaded sentence opened with the verb and resource, followed by a dense payload list. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the long em-dash enumeration is on the heavy side and slightly dilutes the opening statement.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; the payload enumeration plus slug note is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Only edge-case behavior (no slug match, partial data) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains the slug format with an example ("rob-campbell"). The description only restates 'Uses person slug,' adding no extra syntax, sourcing, or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource (workload analysis for a director) and enumerates the concrete payload: NZX board seats, Companies Office directorships, overboarding status, attendance rate, tenure, chair/committee roles. This distinguishes it reasonably well from vague siblings like get_director_detail or get_director_risk, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternatives. The enumerated contents imply the use case (assessing director overboarding/board load), which is implied usage rather than explicit guidance, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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