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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful behavioral context about search surface (bios, career history, cross-platform charity/iwi/public-sector roles) and what ranking signals drive eligibility. It stops short of anything about pagination or how match scores are computed.

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: the search scope leads, the filter dimensions follow, and the return shape closes. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the trailing 'IoD-equivalent' tag is the only near-redundant flourish.

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 an 11-parameter, all-optional screening tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, filters, and result character adequately. The main gap is the absence of guidance on how to choose between 11 optional filters or what happens with no filters applied.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's filter list (skills, sector, gender, fees, experience_type, keyword) with only marginal added meaning, such as clarifying that 'board load' means board seats and that keyword searches bios and career history.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (NZX directors + 500+ executives) plus the scoping intent (board/leadership candidates), and adds a domain anchor ('IoD-equivalent director search'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_directors, get_board_pipeline, or get_board_vacancies without opening a schema.

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 implies its usage context (sourcing board/leadership candidates) and lists the filter dimensions, but never states when to use this over get_directors, get_board_pipeline, or search_skills_taxonomy, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the filter list.

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