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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context, namely the 'Corporate tier required' entitlement gate, which an agent needs before attempting the call.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the action first, usage second, and the tier constraint last; nothing is wasted. The enumerated return fields partially duplicate the output schema, which keeps it just short of ideal conciseness.

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 values need not be explained, yet the description confirms the payload shape, supplies trigger contexts, and adds the Corporate tier prerequisite. An agent has everything required to decide and call correctly.

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 with 100% schema description coverage (NZX ticker with examples AIR, FPH), so the schema fully documents it. The description says 'for a company' but adds no format or identifier detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome.

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 ('List stewardship engagement log entries for a company') and enumerates the returned content, so the agent knows exactly what corpus this draws from. It implicitly differentiates from stewardship-report siblings (get_stewardship_report, list_stewardship_reports) via the 'engagement log' scope, but never names them, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides explicit trigger contexts ('engagement history', 'stewardship conversations', 'NZ Stewardship Code Principle 4', 'how a company was engaged before voting'), which is stronger than implied usage. It offers no when-not guidance or named alternative for overlapping stewardship tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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