get_company_officers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what it returns (list of officers) but omits any behavior like required authentication, error cases, pagination, or handling of empty results. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and zero wasted words. Concise and easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return structure. It states 'list of company officers' and type examples, but lacks detail on officer object fields. Adequate for a simple one-param tool, but not complete for programmatic use.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter company_number is fully described with an example. The description adds no extra semantics, but the schema provides sufficient meaning.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Get list of company officers (directors, secretaries, etc.)'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies (search) and get_company_filings (filings).

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?

Usage context is implied: use this to retrieve officer details for a given company. No explicit when/when-not guidance or references to alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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