search_disqualified_officers

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., pagination limits, authorization requirements, whether it returns both active and past disqualifications). The bare description leaves the agent to infer behavior from the input schema alone.

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 extremely short (5 words), which provides no additional context. While it is concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. A single sentence may be insufficient for a search tool with three parameters.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values, pagination behavior, or example usage. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output structure.

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?

The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the input schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not explain formatting, interpretation, or constraints beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Search for disqualified officers' clearly states the verb (search) and the resource (disqualified officers). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_officers or search_companies, which search for non-disqualified entities. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from these siblings.

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 alternatives such as search_officers or get_natural_officer_disqualification. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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