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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), the description adds substantial behavioral caveats: fact classes (reported vs derived), RAUM double counting affiliates, survivor bias before 2026-09-15, and 'Nothing here is predictive.' This is exactly the kind of disclosure that annotations cannot convey.

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 long but extremely information-dense and each sentence contributes a distinct fact: content overview, page-per-section behavior, fact-class semantics, known data quirks, and input format. There is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return structure at the necessary level, communicates important data caveats, and explains what the tool is not (non-predictive). There are no obvious gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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?

The schema covers the parameter at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying both accepted forms (dfx:ria:<uuid> or CRD string) and by naming the source tools that produce valid ids, which helps the agent construct a correct call.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: returning 'the full card for one registered investment adviser' and enumerates the exact content sections (people flows, growth, offices, owners, affiliates, funds, teams, events, same_as links). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_ria_trends or get_ria_practice by emphasizing completeness for a single firm.

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 clearly states the acceptable inputs (dfx:ria ids or CRD) and even tells the agent where those ids come from ('from search_ria, resolve_name or search_entities'). It implies usage when a full RIA firm record is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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