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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that profile data is included only 'where linked to shared.people' and providing coverage stats (127 issuers). This gives agents a better expectation of data availability and sourcing without contradicting any annotation.

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?

The description is three sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then details the returned data, then adds coverage and filter info. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and scannable for an agent.

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 (return format is specified elsewhere) and only two simple parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what data it returns, how many issuers are covered, and how to filter by role. It even notes conditional profile linking. There are no significant gaps for a read-only, idempotent lookup tool.

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%: both parameters (ticker and role) are fully documented with descriptions, and role includes a list of normalized values. The description's mention of 'Filter by role' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's role parameter description. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the management team (C-suite executives) for an NZX company.' It enumerates the returned data (roles, tenure, biographies, education, profile links) and provides coverage metrics (127 issuers, 508 executives). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_directors or get_board_changes, so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives clear context that this tool is for C-suite executives and mentions filtering by role, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The sibling list implies alternatives (e.g., get_directors for board members), but no direct exclusions or comparisons are made. Thus it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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