Search a registry for company officers (directors, secretaries) by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (list with officer_id, name, appointment count) and the registry caveat ('where the registry exposes it'). No contradictions.

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: the first states the core function, the second provides usage guidance. It is concise and front-loaded. Slight redundancy with the title, but acceptable.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, output structure, and related tool. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. No gaps are evident for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 67% (3 parameters with descriptions for 2). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing usage tips for the 'query' parameter (full names vs partial) and mentioning that limit defaults to 20. The 'jurisdiction' parameter is extensively documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat.

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 specifies the verb (search), resource (registry for company officers), and scope (by name). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_officers (which likely retrieves officers for a known company) and search_companies. The description explicitly states this is the entry point for 'follow the human, not the company' investigations.

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 tells when to use this tool (to find people by name) and provides a direct link to a related tool (get_officer_appointments). It also explains the use case ('follow the human, not the company'). No misleading or missing guidance.

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