get_persons_with_significant_control

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The description only states the basic purpose, omitting any details about pagination (start_index, items_per_page), data freshness, or potential errors. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it could be expanded slightly to include key differentiators without becoming verbose. The structure is clean but lacks useful details.

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 complexity of having many related sibling tools and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how it differs from specialized PSC tools. The agent may misuse it.

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%, and the descriptions in the schema are adequate (pagination, company number). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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?

Description states it gets persons with significant control for a specific company, which is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_psc_individual, get_psc_corporate_entity, etc. The verb 'Get' is generic, and the resource 'persons with significant control' is vague compared to specific PSC types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling PSC tools (e.g., for individuals vs. corporate entities). An agent would not know if this tool returns all PSC types or a subset, or if filtering is possible.

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