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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description goes far beyond that: it explains entitlement gating (first 5 rows plus locked.count/locked.by_type without a paid plan), that contact values and decision-maker names are never returned, that counts exclude bulk re-registrations, and that RAUM sums double-count affiliates. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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-loads the three view definitions, then layers the access/entitlement constraints. Dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs; the access and caveat clauses could be tightened slightly but nothing is wasted.

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 must describe returns, and it does: per-view contents, the entitlement/locked response shape, and the aggregate caveats. An agent has enough to call the tool and interpret results correctly.

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 only 13%, so the description must carry the load, and it substantially does: it maps the view enum, describes sort dimensions for flows/growth, and notes state, class and size filters. It leaves limit bounds and a few sort values (cagr_3y, employees, net_gain/net_loss) implicit, so it compensates well but not completely.

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 resource (derived views over the RIA lane's aggregates) and enumerates exactly what each of the three views — state_stats, flows, growth — contains, matching the view enum. An agent can tell this aggregate/trend tool apart from entity-level siblings like get_ria_firm or search_ria without opening the 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 description clarifies what each view returns, which implicitly guides the view choice, but it never says when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookups (get_ria_firm, search_ria, rank_*). No when-not conditions or explicit alternative routing are provided, so selection is left to inference.

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