get_director_workload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It comprehensively describes what the tool returns (board seats, directorships, risk level, attendance, tenure, roles) with no mention of side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate for a read-only analysis tool.

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 lists outputs, the second states use cases. It is front-loaded with key information, and every sentence 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 a simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and why to use it. It lists all expected output fields and appropriate use cases, leaving no critical gaps.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'slug' with description 'Person slug from shared.people (e.g. 'rob-campbell')'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states 'Get workload analysis for a director' and enumerates specific data points (NZX board seats, directorships, overboarding risk, attendance, tenure, roles). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_director or get_director_due_diligence by focusing on workload and overboarding metrics.

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 states 'Use for overboarding checks, governance due diligence, or board capacity assessment', providing clear use cases. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for related but different tasks.

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