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

With annotations already declaring readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description goes far beyond them: it discloses entitlement gating (first 5 rows in full plus locked.count/locked.by_type on the free tier), that contact values and decision-maker names are withheld and only typed/counted, and that every response reports its own withheld data via `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?

Front-loaded with the two usage modes, then return shape, then access limits and the upsell line. Dense but each clause carries information; the trailing plans URL is slightly promotional but short.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does thoroughly: entry types, dimensions, dated change kinds, disclosure_status semantics, registry fields, and entitlement-truncation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already defines both parameter formats, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by tying each parameter to a distinct result shape (advisor record vs company record) and by enumerating the disclosure_status values, clarifying what an agent gets from each identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and explicitly separates two modes: an advisor (dfx:ria id or CRD) returns reviewed outside-business entries, measured dimensions and dated changes, while a company_id returns the company, registry status and its disclosing advisors. An agent can distinguish this from sibling lookups like search_ria_outside_business without opening either 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?

It maps each input to a distinct use case and points to search_ria_outside_business as the source of a company_id, giving clear context for which identifier to supply. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or name a directly competing tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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