get_board_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source ('from proxy statements') and a notable behavior: historical tickers resolve to the current entity ('FB' resolves to META). This adds useful behavioral context beyond a generic read operation. However, it does not mention any limitations or side effects, though none are apparent for a 'get' operation.

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 concise: two sentences, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second detailing the primary parameter. Every word adds value, no fluff, and critical information is front-loaded. This is an ideal structure.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's core function and leverages the output schema to avoid restating return structures. It provides source, purpose, and key input variants. However, the absence of a description for the 'year' parameter is a notable gap, especially given its presence in the schema. Overall, the description is adequate but could be more complete with a brief mention of 'year'.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does an excellent job explaining the 'ticker' parameter with examples and accepted formats, but the 'year' parameter is not described at all. Since there are only two parameters and one is fully covered while the other is ignored, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('board of directors'), and the specific data fields returned (name, age, tenure, independence, committee memberships). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_executive_compensation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you need board of directors information from proxy statements. It also gives detailed input formats for the ticker parameter, which helps in practical usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, unlike the top-tier examples, but the context is still strong enough to guide an agent.

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