get_director_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns nodes, edges, and interlock metrics' which implies a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or performance implications. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise sentences with critical information front-loaded. Every element (three modes, parameter examples, return type) adds value without 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 no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes return structure ('nodes, edges, and interlock metrics'). For a tool with three optional parameters and three modes, this provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds significant meaning by mapping each parameter to a specific mode (ticker→company mode, director→person mode, no params→network mode). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions and clarifies the tool's polymorphic behavior.

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 is for 'cross-directorship and board interlock analysis' and enumerates three distinct modes (company, director, network), making its purpose highly specific and distinguishable from siblings like get_board_composition_report or get_company_directorships.

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 explains when to use each mode via parameter examples (e.g., '?ticker=AIR' for company mode, '?director=joan-withers' for director mode, 'no params' for network mode). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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