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

Annotations only cover the safe-read profile, but the description goes well beyond: it discloses the free-tier truncation (first 5 rows, locked.count/by_type), that contact values and decision-maker names are never returned, and that every answer self-reports withholdings via `entitlement` and `locked`. It also states the observation-vs-occurrence time model and backfill accrual start.

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 core purpose well, but the opening sentence is a dense run-on enumeration and the closing entitlement/promo sentence (free-trial URL) is commercial copy rather than operational guidance. It is serviceable but padded.

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 return-value burden and does so: it names the fields (occurred_at, observed_at, fact class, magnitude, previous/new state, evidence, source), the pagination token `next_since`, and the entitlement/locked reporting. An agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 43%, so the description must carry weight, and it does for `since` (observation-time lower bound plus backfill behavior) and the filter axes (event type, signal family, subject id). However it never clarifies `limit`, `until`, or `cursor`, leaving part of the low-coverage gap unaddressed.

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+resource: an event tape of RIA graph changes keyed by observation time, and enumerates the event kinds (departures, lift-outs, successions, RAUM/headcount changes, control persons, first ADV filings). This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like search_ria_advisor_moves and search_ria_ma.

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?

Gives concrete usage mechanics: `since` is an ISO timestamp, poll with the returned `next_since`, and a pre-2026-09-15 `since` returns bulk backfill. It also explains how to filter. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over the sibling `changes_since` or the narrower RIA-move tools.

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