get_board_skills_matrix

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and adequately discloses the tool's read-only nature and its three main outputs. However, it omits details like data freshness or authentication requirements, which are minor given the simplicity.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose and details, and the second listing use cases. Every word is necessary and well-structured.

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 the complexity of a board skills matrix (multiple dimensions), the description comprehensively covers the outputs (per-director skills, gaps, diversity) and target companies. No output schema exists, but the description sets clear expectations.

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 already fully describes the ticker parameter (100% coverage). The description adds value by contextualizing its usage with example queries, though it does not introduce new parameter details.

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 the board skills matrix for an NZX company, listing specific outputs (per-director skills, gap analysis, diversity score) and example queries, making it highly distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicit example use cases like 'board skills at [company]', which gives clear context, but does not mention when to avoid using this tool or compare to alternatives.

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