director_board

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it uses 6 standardized APIs, employs a 2-pass matching algorithm for roster changes, marks partial attendance data with quality flags, resolves footnotes by fetching 8MB documents, and caches results. It also states that no value judgments are made, only numerical data and flags.

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 lengthy but well-structured with sections (desc, when, rule, scope, year, etc.). It front-loads the core purpose, and every section adds necessary detail for a complex tool. While some technical details could be trimmed, the structure earns a 4 for clarity and organization.

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 the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all scopes, explains data sources, matching algorithms, quality flags, and footnote resolution. It even references companion tools for context. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further reduces the need to describe return values. No gaps are apparent.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so extensively: it defines all scope values (compensation, roster, individual, etc.), explains year and lookback_years, and describes the resolve_footnotes parameter. Each parameter's purpose and behavior is clearly explained beyond the schema.

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 that the tool provides individual director-level information including compensation, utilization rates, roster changes, and pay gaps. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on detailed board compensation and membership data, as opposed to corporate governance reports or meeting notices.

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 explicitly lists use cases under 'when', such as evaluating director compensation, stewardship engagement, and analyzing pay gaps. It references related tools like corp_gov_report and director_evaluation, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus all siblings. The examples provide strong guidance.

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