get_director_due_diligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details many report components and implies a read-only retrieval operation. It could be more explicit about idempotency or side effects, but the level of detail is high.

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 paragraph that is informative but slightly lengthy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists components. Could be more structured but remains effective.

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 having no output schema, the description thoroughly lists all report components (board positions, overboarding, remuneration, etc.). For a single-parameter tool with comprehensive output, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The parameter 'slug' is described with examples ('joan-withers') and guidance on how to find slugs ('via get_directors'). This adds value beyond the schema, which only states the need for a string.

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 'Get a comprehensive due diligence report for any NZX director' and enumerates specific report components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_director or get_director_network.

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 targets 'executive search firms, law firms, and nominating committees assessing board candidates'. While it does not state when not to use it, the target audience provides clear usage context.

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