get_charity_trustees

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return value (charity name and current trustees), which provides some context, but it omits behavior like error handling, ordering, or what happens if the charity is not found. This is minimal but not completely absent.

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 very concise, with a clear two-part structure of Args and Returns. Every sentence is useful and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the return content, and given low complexity, the lack of edge-case details is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the registration_number parameter as 'The charity's registration number,' adding meaning beyond the bare integer type. However, it does not provide validation rules or format specifics.

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 it retrieves the list of trustees for a charity, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools such as get_charity_details and get_charity_financials, which cover other aspects of charity data.

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 usage is implied: if you need trustee information, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions such as requiring a valid registration number. There is no comparison to sibling tools.

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