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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false) by disclosing the 12 data sources screened, the auto-escalation rule ('Active bankruptcy or confirmed sanctions match = auto-Critical'), and the entitlement tier required. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a short first sentence, followed by a dense but informative enumeration of screened sources. It loses a little to redundancy: the return-value list (risk score, rating, match status) is already covered by the existing 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 tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it establishes scope, data sources, escalation logic and tier restriction. The only gap is routing guidance versus sibling director-risk 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'slug' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example and a pointer to get_directors. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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+resource+scope ('Run automated KYC/AML screening on an NZX director') and enumerates the exact risk databases and outputs, making it clearly distinguishable from near-siblings like get_director_risk, get_director_due_diligence and get_prohibited_directors.

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?

It supplies one hard usage constraint ('Corporate tier only') and the schema points to get_directors for obtaining a slug, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many overlapping director-risk siblings. Usage is only implied by the breadth of the screening.

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