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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The text usefully adds the methodology behind the output (the five named risk factors, cohort analysis, single-point-of-failure detection), but says nothing about data recency, coverage universe limits, or cost/latency for what is evidently a heavy computed analysis.

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, purpose and component list front-loaded in the first, audience scoping in the second. The parenthetical factor enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct analytic output, so nothing is wasted.

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-required-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys what is computed and for whom. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the several board-analytics siblings, which an agent would need to resolve before choosing this 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?

There is a single parameter (ticker) with 100% schema description coverage including NZX format examples, so the schema already carries the full burden. The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case for high-coverage schemas.

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 (succession risk assessment for a company board) and enumerates the analytic components produced (5-factor model, tenure cohorts, cliff risk, ranked successors). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_board_pipeline, get_board_health_score or search_board_candidates, whose scope overlaps with 'pipeline readiness' and 'ranked successor candidates'.

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 only routing signal is the audience tag 'IOD-8 feature for board search firms and governance consultants', which hints at context but never states when to call this versus alternatives. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative anywhere in the description.

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