get_company_executives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates the output includes leader_name, which is a read-like behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. The description is minimally adequate.

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?

The description is very brief (two sentences) and to the point. It includes both English and Chinese text, which may be redundant. Despite brevity, it conveys the core purpose and a linked tool. It is not verbose, but structuring with more param details would improve it.

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?

Given no output schema and a single undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the format of the returned data (list, object, etc.) beyond mentioning leader_name. For a tool with such minimal schema coverage, the description should provide more context about inputs and outputs.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'code' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'code' represents (e.g., company ticker or identifier), nor does it provide any guidance on valid values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool returns company executives and board members, and identifies that the output includes 'leader_name' which can be used in get_executive_background. This distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the output and linking to another tool, but it could be more precise about the exact structure of the returned data.

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 usage context by mentioning that the returned leader_name is usable in get_executive_background, suggesting a workflow where this tool is a precursor. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions.

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