get_iod_designations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the return data but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is cached or live. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is moderate but could be improved.

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 front-loads the main action and lists key details. It is reasonably concise with no unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (board seats, chair status, gender, statistics), which is helpful given no output schema. It covers the main aspects needed for an agent to understand the tool's output, though it omits details like pagination or result ordering.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds some context by mentioning example designations and a company ticker example, but it does not provide significant additional meaning beyond 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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving IoD designated directors on NZX boards. It lists the specific designations (CFInstD, CMInstD, CDir, MInstD) and the data returned (current board seats, chair status, gender, summary statistics). This makes it distinct from sibling tools that focus on other financial or governance data.

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 example queries like 'IoD directors at [company]' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools suggests differentiation, but no direct guidance is given.

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