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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'street addresses are never read' (privacy guarantee) and the data source 'from branch city and state with registration dates.' This goes beyond annotations and helps an agent understand constraints.

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 a single dense sentence that packs a lot of information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose (ranked offices) and then lists metrics and filters. It could be slightly restructured for readability but is efficient and every clause adds value.

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 convey return content. It does mention 'advisors today and 12 and 36 month flows,' indicating the output includes these fields. It does not explicitly describe pagination or return structure, but the cursor parameter hints at that. For a search tool with this complexity, the description covers the essentials without being exhaustive.

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 29%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the sort options by listing the metrics ('departures, joins, net flow...') and clarifies 'breakaways in formation' with a parenthetical. It also maps filters (firm CRD, state, class, min advisors) to the schema parameters. It doesn't explain limit or cursor, but those are standard pagination params and the schema already describes cursor.

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 states a clear verb ('search' implied by tool name) and resource: offices (firm + IAPD branch city). It enumerates specific metrics (departures, joins, net flow, rate, team lift-outs, breakaways, size) and filters, making it unambiguous what the tool returns. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ria_advisor_moves or search_ria_teams.

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 implies usage (when you need ranked office-level movement data) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It does not state when not to use it or point to a specific sibling for other cases, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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