Get Officer Appointment History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it returns current and historic appointments, includes dissolved or insolvent companies, and explicitly discloses that there is no current-only filter. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, the prerequisite workflow, and an explicit limitation. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 a single parameter, a strong output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description fills the remaining gaps: what data is returned, how to obtain the required officer_id, and what filtering behavior to expect. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains officer_id as a Companies House officer ID returned by company_officers. The description adds a little context by saying the officer ID is used to fetch appointment history, but it does not materially expand on the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a person's full company appointment history by officer ID.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling company_officers tool by emphasizing historical appointment discovery across companies, not just a company's current officers.

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 gives an explicit workflow: use company_officers first to find an officer_id, then use this tool. It also states the tool always returns full history and has no current-only filter, which prevents misuse when a current-only view is needed.

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