company_officers

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

Description provides no behavioral context beyond 'get company officers / management team'. With no annotations present, the description carries full burden, but it doesn't disclose what fields are returned, whether data availability varies by source (VCI vs KBS), pagination, or historical depth. The existence of an output schema helps, but for a data-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral transparency would be valuable.

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 a single efficient sentence that states the action and resource clearly. Five words of actual content with zero wasted phrasing. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than concise - the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter context.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 100% schema description coverage, and its complexity is low (2 params, 1 required, no enums, no nested objects). Given this context, a minimal description is mostly adequate for a straightforward getter. However, the distinction between source values (VCI vs KBS) and their implications could be clarified, and the tool's relationship to sibling company tools like company_overview and company_shareholders is not explained.

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 schema already documents both parameters (symbol and source) with example values. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Under the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Get company officers / management team' states a clear verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like company_news (content), company_shareholders (ownership), and financial_* (statements) by the focus on officers/management personnel. It doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the subject matter is distinct enough to avoid confusion, so this falls short of a 5 only because no naming of alternatives is present.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when company_officers is preferred over company_overview or company_shareholders, nor any exclusion guidance. For an agent choosing among many company_* and financial_* sibling tools, explicit selection guidance would be helpful but is entirely absent.

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