get_management_team

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions data coverage (127 issuers, 508 executives) and return fields (roles, tenure, biographies, profile links). However, it lacks details on data freshness, authentication, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes relevant stats and examples. Slight improvement possible with bullet points, but overall concise and informative.

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?

For a simple data retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what is returned, coverage, and example queries. Missing details on sorting, pagination, and error cases, but adequate for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by listing all 15 normalized roles (beyond schema examples) and clarifying the role filter's purpose, enhancing parameter understanding 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 states the tool retrieves the management team (C-suite executives) for an NZX company. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'management team', and provides example queries that differentiate it from sibling tools like get_directors.

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 lists concrete use cases (e.g., 'who is the CEO of [company]?') which guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention scenarios where it should not be used.

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