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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content of the result set, which is mildly useful context, but says nothing about pagination, defaults, or filtering behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Front-loading is good, though the second and third sentences could be tightened further.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus intended analytics use. It is largely complete for a filtered read-only query tool; only the relationship to sibling governance tools is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, sector, and recent_only are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or default detail beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource with a precise scope: NZX directors serving as board chair for the first time. It also enumerates the returned data (recent appointments, prior board experience, governance risk scores), making the tool's identity clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like get_chair_network or get_succession_plan.

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?

"Useful for governance transition analysis and board succession planning" gives implied usage context but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many governance siblings. The agent must infer selection on its own.

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