get_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety posture is covered. The description adds nothing further: it says nothing about what the 'version' flag does to results, whether historical versions are returned together, or how large the response can be.

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?

At eight words it is certainly short and the key content words lead, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete, front-loaded statement of purpose, so brevity here reflects under-specification more than discipline.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description's only real job is to state what the tool returns and when to use it over siblings; it half-satisfies the first and completely omits the second, leaving an agent guessing at routing.

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%, including the meaning of cd_cvm ('CVM code from search_company') and the version enum semantics, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter context beyond that, which is the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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 names the resources returned (board, officers, fiscal council composition) but is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that it retrieves governance membership data. It distinguishes the topic from siblings like get_shareholders or get_compensation, but only loosely.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of prerequisites (e.g., that cd_cvm comes from search_company), and no mention of which alternative to pick for related governance data such as governance_practices, get_shareholders, or get_compensation.

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