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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: DATA_QUALITY anomalies are excluded by default, robust deviations are floored, and there is intentionally no master score. This helps an agent set expectations and avoid over-interpreting results.

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 densely packed with useful output fields, family definitions, filters, and an interpretive caveat. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids filler, though a paragraph break or bullet structure would improve scannability.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and many RIA-focused siblings, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates return fields, explains each anomaly family, lists filters, and warns about interpretation. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and a couple of parameter semantics, but an agent can invoke it correctly from this text.

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 only 36%, so the description carries some burden. It compensates by naming the filter dimensions and explaining family semantics in detail, but it does not explain sort, limit, cursor, or the severity/class enums beyond what the schema already provides. The mapping from 'class', 'minimum RAUM', and 'date' to firm_class, min_raum_usd, and since is inferable but not explicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: searching reported values and filing-to-filing changes that stand out against a peer group. It clearly differentiates the tool's purpose from the many get_/search_ RIA siblings by emphasizing peer-relative anomalies, output composition, and families.

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 conveys an implied use case: screening peer-relative outliers and caveats that results are 'a place to look, never a conclusion.' It does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like search_ria_changes or get_ria_firm, nor provide exclusions beyond DATA_QUALITY being excluded unless asked.

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