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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavioral context: freemium returns first 5 rows plus locked.count/locked.by_type counts, records name subject and 3 related names per section, contact values and decision-maker names are never returned, and every answer reports withholding in `entitlement` and `locked`.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: return fields first, then limitations, then ID formats, then access tiers. Nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs, though the trailing promotional sentence with the free-trial URL is marketing rather than functional content.

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 fully carries the burden of describing the return shape, the withheld fields, and the entitlement-dependent result structure. Nothing material to calling or interpreting the tool is left unexplained.

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% and the single dfx_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (uuid or CRD string). The description restates the same dual-acceptance rule without adding format, validation, or edge-case detail, so the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('One IAPD-registered advisor') and enumerates the exact fields returned — name, current firm with class/tenure, dated employment spans, firm changes, teams, exams, designations, industry start, events. This is clearly distinct from get_ria_firm and get_ria_practice, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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?

It tells the agent how to call it (dfx:ria: id or CRD number) and extensively covers what happens at each entitlement tier, but gives no when-to-use guidance versus resolve_ria_advisor, search_ria, or get_ria_practice. Usage context is implied by the field list rather than stated.

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