Search Disqualified Directors

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so description builds on this by noting that querying a company name yields zero results, and lists return fields. This adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though pagination limits are only implied by schema.

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 four well-structured sentences, starting with the core purpose, then usage notes, then return data. Every sentence adds value without 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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to elaborate on return structure, but it still mentions key fields (names, DOB, disqualification snippets, officer IDs) and links to disqualified_profile. The tool's pagination parameters are adequately covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the query parameter's constraint to individual names, but adds no new meaning for items_per_page or start_index. Baseline 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 states 'Check whether a named individual is banned from acting as a UK company director,' using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like company_search or charity_search by specifying the domain of disqualified directors.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when asked to check disqualified, banned, or barred directors,' and warns against using company names, which would return zero results. It also references disqualified_profile for further details, providing clear guidance.

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