Get Disqualified Director Profile

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the return contents (reasons, Act/section, period, company names) and reinforces the need for a pre-discovered officer ID, which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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: a clear action statement and a compact list of returns plus usage note. Every phrase contributes value with no redundancy.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description fully captures the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and return contents. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already covers officer_id with a full description including its source. The description repeats this linkage but does not introduce new parameter constraints or types, so the baseline of 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 identifies the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('full disqualification record for a director') via officer ID. It distinguishes itself from the sibling disqualified_search by focusing on retrieval of a specific record rather than searching.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: 'Use disqualified_search first to find the officer ID.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and points to the alternative tool for discovery.

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