get_board_composition_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior by detailing the analysis performed: independence vs NZX Code, gender diversity, tenure distribution, skills matrix, etc., and mentions 'Returns automated risk flags across 10 categories.' This gives a comprehensive understanding of what the tool delivers.

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 at two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose and listing major report components. Every sentence is informative and 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (e.g., tenure distribution with 9-year limit flags, succession risk scoring). It covers the main analytical outputs but could be more precise about the format or structure of the results.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter (ticker) with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by providing examples ('e.g. AIR, FPH, MEL') and context (NZX company), reinforcing the parameter's meaning.

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 'Get a comprehensive board composition analytics report for an NZX company.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and differentiates from sibling tools like get_board_skills_matrix and get_governance_scorecard by indicating it's a comprehensive report covering many aspects.

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 explicitly lists example use cases: 'board composition for [company]', 'governance quality analysis', 'succession risk', etc. While it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context suggests it's suitable for broad board analytics queries.

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