get_company_board_insufficient_shares_consecutive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not specify data freshness, rate limits, permissions needed, or output format details. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data sources or constraints, which are important given the complexity implied by 'consecutive months'. The output schema helps, but more context could improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned implicit filters or defaults. Given the lack of parameters, a baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the empty schema.

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 action ('Get') and target resource ('companies where board members have held insufficient shares for 3 consecutive months or more'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_board_insufficient_shares' (which lacks the 'consecutive' aspect), missing full distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'get_company_board_insufficient_shares' or other board-related tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for application.

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