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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the two modes. It does not say whether results are a list or single record, whether pagination or rate limits apply, or whether any authentication/data source constraints exist.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the two modes stated economically. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic phrasing is slightly terse for a two-mode tool.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain the return shape (single firm vs. list of matches) and any constraints on the lookup. It covers the invocation surface adequately but leaves the agent guessing about results.

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 description coverage is 100% ('CRD number', 'firm name'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only the mapping of each parameter to its retrieval mode, which is marginal value over the schema baseline.

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 names a specific resource (Form ADV adviser firms) and two distinct operations (search by name, retrieve by CRD), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. No sibling tool covers investment advisers, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, 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?

The phrase 'search by name or get one by CRD' implies the branching condition for each parameter, giving usable but inferential guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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