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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the search algorithm (strict matching first, then broadening), the specific fields returned (CRD, main office, RAUM, employee count, as-of date), and the sort order (largest by assets first). This provides substantial behavioral context not captured in the schema or annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with each sentence providing essential information: what it searches, how the search behaves, what it returns, and how to use the result. No redundant language or fluff.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the input, search behavior, output fields, ordering, and the next step, leaving no critical gaps in understanding how to invoke and use the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds semantic meaning to 'query' by explaining the matching behavior (punctuation-independent, strict then broad), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's simple 'Part of the firm's legal or business name.'

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching the tracked SEC Form ADV adviser set by firm name. It specifies the resource (SEC Form ADV advisers) and the verb (search), and distinguishes itself from sibling GetInvestmentAdviser by indicating that CRD is used with that other 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 provides a clear usage context: search by firm name to find advisers, then use the returned CRD with GetInvestmentAdviser. It implies when to use this tool versus the retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like SearchInstitutions or SearchFunds.

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