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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the entitlement gating (5-row preview plus locked.count/locked.by_type without a paid plan), permanently withheld fields (contact values, decision-maker names), the 95% lift threshold of 1.15, and that entitlement/locked fields report what was withheld. This is unusually rich operational context.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: indicator taxonomy first, then filters, then the usage routing, then access limits. It is long, and the closing plan/pricing line reads as promotional, but nearly every sentence carries selection-relevant information.

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 correctly supplies return-shape detail: dated indicators with sources and back-test stats, counts by office and kind for firm-scoped answers, and the locked/entitlement withholding structure. An agent can call this and interpret the response without further documentation.

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 already 80%, but the description adds real meaning: firm/name matching covers every CRD carrying that name, firm_dfx_id accepts dfx:ria: ids or CRDs, and the indicator kinds are given domain semantics that the bare enum cannot convey. Minor gap: office/state/since/cursor semantics rest on the schema.

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?

Names the specific resource (observed pre-move indicators) and enumerates each indicator type explicitly — teammate/senior departure, branch attrition, added Series 65/63, part-ownership of a newly filed adviser — so an agent knows exactly what is and isn't returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_ria_advisor_moves.

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 triggering queries ('who shows signs of moving', 'flight risk', 'who else in that office might leave') and names the alternative tool for the adjacent task (search_ria_advisor_moves for completed moves). It also states the crucial framing caveat that these are indicators, not forecasts, which prevents misuse.

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