list_company_officers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the purpose but does not mention that it is read-only, whether it returns all officers or paginated, or any ordering defaults. The minimal description leaves significant unknowns for the agent.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key information.

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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which might document return values), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain pagination, ordering, or the effect of optional parameters. The agent lacks crucial context for proper invocation.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no explanations. The description adds no information about what each parameter (e.g., order_by, start_index, register_type, register_view, items_per_page) does or how to use them. The agent would have no guidance on parameter usage.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'officers of a company', and specifies scope (current and past) with examples (directors, secretaries, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_officers which is search-based.

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 implies use when you need officers for a specific company (since company_number is required), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_officers or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are given.

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