get_board_members

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read or write, not caching/freshness behavior (require_fresh, retries), not pagination (limit/offset with defaults), not the output format. For an 8-parameter tool this is effectively no behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy. Referring to "the skill" and "summary" forces the agent to resolve out-of-band references instead of front-loading the actual purpose.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to supply purpose, pagination, format, and freshness semantics. It supplies only a pointer to where the required key comes from, leaving the tool effectively undocumentable from the definition alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all eight parameters and does so for only one, loosely: it points the agent to the summary output as the source of the group key (and even spells it groupKey, not the schema's group_key). mode, sort, limit, offset, format, retries, and require_fresh get no meaning at all.

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 calls itself "Same DangInvest board-detail query as the skill," which restates an external reference rather than stating a verb and resource. It never says the tool returns board constituents/members, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings like get_boards_summary, get_industry_members, or get_index_constituents.

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?

"use groupKey from summary" hints at where to obtain the required key, which is mildly useful. But there is no statement of when to call this versus get_boards_summary (the obvious companion) or the other membership tools, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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