Get company directors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what data is returned but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. The phrase 'in one call' hints at completeness but doesn't clarify limitations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in the second. Every sentence adds value by detailing returned data and benefits, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and data scope well but lacks completeness on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error handling. For a tool with one parameter and no complex schema, it's adequate but has clear gaps in operational context.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter (company_number), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying this is for 'UK company' and mentioning 'Companies House', which provides context beyond the schema's pattern example, though it doesn't detail parameter usage further.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current and past directors for a UK company', with specific details about the data returned (name, role, dates, nationality, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on director information rather than company details, financials, networks, or search capabilities.

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 implies usage when director information is needed for a UK company, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_company or get_network. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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