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

Description discloses return content beyond annotations: enforcement history, penalties, severity, prohibited director flags. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description correctly spends its budget on output substance. Could add whether data spans all NZX companies or requires existing records, but coverage is solid.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence front-loads what is returned and from whom; second delivers usage triggers. Well structured.

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?

Output schema exists so return format need not be explained; the description nonetheless summarizes key fields. With annotations covering safety and schema covering the parameter, remaining gaps are minor. Could note any coverage limitations (e.g. only NZX companies) but adequate for the 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?

Single ticker parameter at 100% schema coverage, so baseline is high. Description implies company-scoped lookup consistent with the ticker, adding no conflicting syntax. Slight upside missed by not clarifying ticker format beyond schema.

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 (regulatory enforcement actions) and names the sources (FMA, Commerce Commission, NZX, other regulators). Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_litigation_history or get_prohibited_directors by scoping to regulator enforcement.

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?

Explicit trigger list: 'Use when asked about regulatory risk, enforcement history, FMA actions, fines, or compliance issues for a company.' Gives concrete query intents that route the agent here rather than to adjacent tools.

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