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 covered. The description adds meaningful context: the set of executives returned (CEO/CFO/COO/CTO and others), included attributes (tenure, biographies, education, profile links), and that profile data appears only where linked to shared.people.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return contents and filtering. Mildly redundant ('15 normalized roles' restates the schema enum) but no wasted 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, the description needn't detail return values, and it still characterizes them well. Required-vs-optional parameters are clean and explained. Nothing critical to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and both ticker and role are documented in the schema with examples and an enumerated role list. The description's mention of '15 normalized roles' and the role filter largely repeats what the schema already provides, so this sits at the baseline.

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 resource ('management team (C-suite executives) for an NZX company'), and scopes it to senior executives rather than the board or general staff. An agent can distinguish this from get_directors and get_executive_compensation without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied via the role filter example ('Filter by role (e.g. CEO, CFO)'), but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings like get_team_members or get_directors, nor any prerequisite noted. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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