Get an officer’s appointments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only and safe nature is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including that the result includes current and past appointments, which makes it suitable for conflict-of-interest checks.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the purpose, gives concrete example use cases, and ends with the critical parameter caveat. Every sentence contributes.

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 is a read-only list endpoint with a full output schema and fully documented parameters, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the key use cases and the source of officer_id. Pagination is not explicitly mentioned in the description, but the schema fully covers start_index and items_per_page.

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 all four parameters. The description still adds value by emphasizing the provenance and non-name nature of officer_id, which is the most likely source of agent error.

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 clear verb and resource: every company an officer is or has been appointed to. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by naming it the conflict-of-interest and director-network tool, and the title directly matches the function.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: across a board to find undisclosed shared directorships, or across one person to check for a history of dissolved companies. It also warns that officer_id must come from get_officers or find_officer and never from a name, providing clear routing guidance.

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