get_officer_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns both board and executive roles, includes tenure, status, committees, and a stable permanent_id for cross-referencing. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention pagination or rate limits. Overall, it provides good behavioral context.

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 concise, with three sentences that directly state the tool's purpose, scope, and usage. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (every director and executive with start/end dates, tenure, status, committees, permanent_id). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output without needing an output schema.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the 'from','to','role','type','status' filters without much elaboration. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 full historical officer timeline for an NZX company, specifying it includes both directors and executives. It distinguishes from siblings like get_management_team and get_directors by emphasizing historical data and cross-referencing with permanent_id.

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 lists use cases such as 'past leadership, board turnover, executive churn, board refreshment, or who used to run a company.' It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives, but the provided use cases are sufficient guidance.

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