get_directors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that this is a read-only operation ('Get'), indicates the data source ('disclosed by one company'), and itemizes returned fields. It does not mention edge cases or access constraints, but for a straightforward retrieval tool the main behavioral expectations are covered.

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 two sentences with no wasted words: the first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then adds payload detail; the second sentence states the use case. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with only 2 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus schema is largely sufficient: required identifier resolution, optional fiscal_year behavior, output fields, and main use case are all covered. An explicit pointer to relevant siblings would improve completeness, but it is not essential for a correct call.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions including EDINET code examples, the distinction from securities codes, the resolution step, and the fiscal_year default behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('board roster disclosed by one company'), and enumerates the returned entities ('each director and corporate auditor') with their attributes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_shareholders, which would return ownership data rather than board composition.

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 states the intended use case ('Answers governance and board-composition questions'), and the schema's code parameter explains that a name or securities code must first be resolved via search_companies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is reasonably clear.

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