get_board_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the tool's output (departed directors with specific fields) and its nature (read-only lookup). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but given the tool's apparent safety, this is adequate. No contradiction with missing annotations.

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: the first defines the output source and content, the second states usage. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with key information.

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 description explains what the tool returns and its use cases. It mentions the 12-month time frame and the kind of details provided. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers the output's nature. Missing details like pagination, but limit parameter covers max results. Almost complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'skills, qualifications' aligning with the 'skill' parameter but does not elaborate on parameter usage. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns departed directors with details like remaining board count, skills, qualifications, and departure dates. It specifies the scope (last 12 months) and explicit use cases (board recruitment, candidate identification, talent pipeline analysis), distinguishing it from siblings like get_directors or get_board_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 directly states when to use the tool (for board recruitment, candidate identification, talent pipeline analysis). However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like get_directors (active directors) or get_board_changes (broad changes), which would strengthen guidance.

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