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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description's job is supplementary. It adds genuinely useful context: the four data sources behind the result and the presence of a 'match confidence' value, implying name-based fuzzy matching against directors. It does not discuss coverage limits or latency.

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 the first clause, followed by sources, return fields, and usage in descending priority. Four sentences are all load-bearing with no filler, though listing return fields is mildly redundant given the output schema exists.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope, sources, and when to call it — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this single-parameter read correctly 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?

Only one parameter (ticker) exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with an example set. The description adds nothing to ticker semantics and does not explain how a company ticker resolves to the set of directors examined, which is the non-obvious part of this call. 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 and resource (disciplinary records) scoped to directors of an NZX company, and enumerates the four professional bodies queried. It is clearly understandable on its own, but it never names or contrasts the closely-related siblings get_prohibited_directors and get_regulatory_actions, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 final sentence gives concrete trigger scenarios (professional misconduct, disciplinary history, professional body sanctions, director professional standing), which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of exclusions or routing to alternatives such as get_prohibited_directors or get_regulatory_actions.

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