ares_get_statutory_bodies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: 'By default returns currently-active members only.' It also mentions the source (Public Register VR) and implies a read-only operation via 'List'. No side effects or contradictions are present, but it omits details about return format and error handling.

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 states the core function, the second adds default behavior and use cases. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes. No filler or repetition exists.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, default filtering, and common use cases. However, it does not describe the output structure or error behavior, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (ico and includeHistorical), and the description does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond restating the default active-only behavior in the tool description. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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's purpose: 'List statutory bodies (jednatelé, představenstvo, dozorčí rada) of a Czech company from the Public Register (VR).' It uses a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (statutory bodies), and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact types of entities covered.

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 clear usage context: 'Useful for due diligence, KYC, and verifying who is authorised to sign contracts.' It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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