get_board_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It states what data is returned (director name, action, role, etc.) and provides statistics (1,242 changes). However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, which is a gap.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and includes key details and usage examples without extraneous text.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, data fields, and example queries. It could mention pagination or date range handling, but is largely complete.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, such as mentioning 'NZX ticker' and action examples, but overall does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 retrieves board changes for NZX companies, specifying types (appointments, resignations, etc.) and data fields. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_board_composition_report' or 'get_director_changes'.

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 provides three example query intents ('who joined/left the board?', 'recent director changes', 'board turnover history'), guiding appropriate use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the examples are clear.

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