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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the specific data fields returned (legal/business names, SEC file number, etc.), which gives the agent a better sense of what the response contains. It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but this is a simple read operation.

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?

Two sentences: the first packs the scope and all key fields in a list, the second gives a pointer to the search tool. No redundant words, no repetition of schema content, and the most important detail (Form ADV profile by CRD number) is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It specifies the input (CRD number), the exact domain (Form ADV), the list of fields returned, and how to obtain the necessary input via SearchInvestmentAdvisers. The only minor omission is error handling, but this is not essential for a simple getter and the annotations cover safety concerns.

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?

The schema covers the parameter with type and description (100% coverage), but the tool description adds semantic detail by specifying it is for 'SEC-registered' advisers and that it is the 'Organization' CRD number, distinguishing from other possible identifiers. It also explains how to find the CRD value via the sibling tool, enriching the parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource, 'full Form ADV profile', and identifiers it by 'Organization CRD number'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling SearchInvestmentAdvisers by explicitly noting that CRD numbers can be found with that tool.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this versus the alternative: 'Find CRD numbers with SearchInvestmentAdvisers' implies you need a CRD number to use this tool and should use the search tool if you lack one. No exclusions are stated, but the prerequisite and an alternative are clearly named.

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