get_director

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool includes biography, board appointments, and optional additional data. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or response format, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundancy.

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 tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, required input, and output contents. It could be more complete by specifying the output format, but it is sufficient for an agent to use 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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining what the include parameter can request ('insider trades, remuneration, exec_comp') and that slug is obtained via get_directors. This enriches 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 action ('Get a detailed profile'), the resource ('a specific NZX director'), and the identifier ('by their URL slug'). It lists included data (biography, board appointments) and optional extras, distinguishing it from sibling get_directors which likely returns a list.

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 implicitly directs users to find slugs via get_directors, which is referenced in the schema description. However, the main description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_directors or other get_* tools. The hint is useful but not fully explicit.

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