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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real context beyond that: the return shape (rank, CRD, city, state, value, plus starting value for growth rankings), the cap of 100 with a default of 25, and the fallback behavior for an unknown metric. Only pagination/ordering nuances are 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?

Three dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries information. There is mild redundancy: the include_bd_affiliated explanation largely restates the schema description, which costs it the top mark.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields and the limit default/cap, and it explains the metric-discovery fallback. This is nearly complete for a 4-parameter read tool; only ordering of results and error cases beyond 'unknown metric' are left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by illustrating what the opaque 'metric' slug means ('largest by assets', 'fastest growing') and clarifying what include_bd_affiliated covers (wirehouses, broker-dealers, banks). This adds genuine semantic value over the schema text it partly echoes.

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 specifies the exact resource (rankings of independent wealth management RIAs) and its scope (national or single-state), and explains the provenance (computed from Form ADV). It is clearly distinct from search_ria_firms or ria_market_stats, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for leaderboard-style lists. The 'unknown metric returns the list of rankings' note usefully doubles as a discovery path, and the include_bd_affiliated guidance tells when to broaden scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement.

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