Get company officers

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that service addresses are withheld unless verbose is set, that results include current and resigned officers, and that officer_id can be passed onward. These are meaningful behavioral details not visible in annotations or schema alone. No contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core function and output are front-loaded, followed by use cases, a caveat, and a prerequisite. Every sentence 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?

The tool is a read-only list operation with a fully described schema, output schema, and safety annotations. The description covers purpose, use cases, a sensitive-data caveat, and the prerequisite for finding a company number, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining why verbose matters (service addresses are personal data and withheld unless set) and reiterating that company_number does not accept a name, which reinforces the 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 clearly states the tool returns directors, secretaries, and members of one company, both current and resigned, each with an officer_id. It is a specific verb+resource statement and distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to get_officer_appointments and find_company.

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 gives explicit use cases ('see who runs a company', first step in a conflict-of-interest check) and a clear prerequisite ('call find_company first if you only have a name'). It also routes users to get_officer_appointments for the next step, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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