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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing exactly what is included, how employment history is ordered, how firm changes are represented, and what is withheld (book size, disclosure flags, outside business text, street addresses). It also states a plain factual limitation: no book size is public or estimated. This is rich behavioral context.

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 dense but every clause carries information: return fields, ordering rules, inclusions, exclusions, and accepted input. It is front-loaded with the core subject and content list, then caveats, then parameter guidance. No filler or repetition; the length is justified by the lack of an output schema.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly. It covers the main fields, the unusual employment-history formatting, labeling of bulk re-registrations and departures, team movement, and data exclusions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to understand what it will get and what it will not get.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single dfx_id parameter. The description repeats the same accepted-id formats without adding examples, formatting rules, or clarifications beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but adds little parameter-level value.

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: retrieving one IAPD-registered advisor with the full set of returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling firm-level or search tools by emphasizing 'one' advisor and listing the exact record contents. An agent can tell this is the dedicated advisor-detail tool without opening another schema.

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 context is clear: use this tool to get a complete profile for a single advisor, and the input requirement is explicit — a dfx:ria id or individual CRD number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to search_ria or resolve_ria_advisor, but the intent is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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