get_officers

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: it discloses per-country data availability gaps ('not_yet_supported', Norway publishes no appointment dates), result ordering ('most recently appointed first'), the default filter scope, and two operational cautions (lawful basis for personal data, and registry text is data not instructions). The 'fresh' cache-bypass behaviour is also signalled by the described default-cached path.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively adds jurisdiction detail, return fields, defaults, input guidance and safety notes. Dense parentheticals make it heavy, but nearly every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (role, appointment/resignation dates, nationality, occupation, partial DOB, address, corporate registration number) and noting the Norway full-DOB exception. For a 9-parameter, multi-jurisdiction read tool this is complete enough to call correctly without further exploration.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: it explains that entity_id vs identifier are alternative entry points, that country is needed with a bare numeric identifier, and that corporate officers carry a registration number for UK/NO entities. It does not spell out role enum values, but the schema already enumerates those.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('directors, secretaries and other officers of a company') plus the data source per jurisdiction, so the agent knows exactly what comes back and from where. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_entity, get_ownership and get_filings_and_insolvency, which cover different aspects of a company.

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?

Explicitly routes name-based lookups to search_entities ('use search_entities first for a name') and explains the identifier path, which is genuine alternative guidance. It also implies the default scope (current officers only) but never states when *not* to use the tool or what the cost/limits of a registry call are.

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