check_board_conflict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that board minutes attachments are not read, that '-' in voting tables cannot distinguish absence from recusal, that no judgment/score/grade is produced, and that unlisted counterparty executives may require registry supplementation. It also describes sampling limits (up to 6 recent disclosures examined, up to 3 compared) and how rcept_no overrides lookback_days.

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 dense but front-loaded, starting with the core purpose before detailing data sources and limitations. Every sentence contributes operational constraints or scope boundaries; there is no filler despite the length being justified by tool complexity.

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 a complex disclosure-analysis tool with no annotations and an output schema that handles return values, the description provides enough scope, parameter behavior, data-source limitations, and explicit non-goals for correct invocation. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 compensate, and it fully documents all three parameters: company_name formats (name, 6-digit ticker, 8-digit corp_code), rcept_no format (14 digits) and its effect of ignoring lookback_days, and lookback_days default/range plus the resulting search behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific investigative action: cross-checking whether directors who participated in a resolution are also executives of the counterparty or subject company, limited to disclosure scope. It clearly distinguishes the target disclosure types and explicitly excludes CB/BW/rights-offering subscriber cases, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like find_actor_overlap or get_major_decision.

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?

It gives clear positive scope (major disclosures involving controlling shareholders/related parties, certain transaction types) and explicit exclusions (CB/BW/rights-offering subscriber types are out of scope). It also explains selection behavior when rcept_no is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to use instead, which keeps it from a 5.

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