search_board_members

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the search action and fails to mention pagination, filtering semantics, read-only nature, or any side effects, which is inadequate for a 9-parameter tool.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It is effectively front-loaded and appropriately concise for the information it conveys, though its brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to provide more operational context. It fails to explain what 'extracted' means, how pagination works, what filters are available, or what the response contains, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 56%, and the description itself mentions no parameters. Fields like ein, sec_cik, source_type, and min_confidence remain completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description adds no value beyond the partial schema descriptions.

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 action ('Search') and the specific resource ('extracted board members / directors') with an explicit scope ('across organizations'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_proxy_officers or search_insider_transactions.

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 the tool should be used when searching for board members or directors, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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