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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds the commercial behavior: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and failed calls not charged. That is exactly the kind of cost/side-effect context an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of rate limits, latency, or what an empty result looks like.

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?

Purpose and lookup keys are front-loaded, and the pricing sentence is a compact, self-contained clause. The long enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is ordered and readable rather than 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 annotations covering the read-only profile and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the remaining piece an agent needs: payment model and cost. The main residual gap is sibling disambiguation against finance_sec_iapd.

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 100% with both parameters fully documented, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's 'by CRD number or firm name' restates the schema rather than adding format, precedence, or fallback behavior beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (investment adviser firm record from SEC IAPD / Form ADV) and the two lookup keys (CRD number or firm name). An agent immediately knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling finance_sec_iapd, which appears to cover overlapping IAPD data.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by CRD number or firm name', and the enumerated fields suggest the lookups this tool answers. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the sibling finance_sec_iapd or finance_sec_form_d, both of which plausibly overlap.

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