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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: no API key is required and the data is embedded curated static reference material (2023–2024), which tells the agent results are fixed rather than live-queried.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a scannable bulleted category list, then source and access notes. It is somewhat long for a single meaningful parameter, and the 'all' default is stated twice (in prose and within the category list), but nothing is wasted enough to hurt readability.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers source, vintage, category granularity, and access requirements. The only material gap is that the pass-through plumbing parameters are never mentioned, which an agent relying on the description alone would not know about.

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 description coverage is reported as 0% at the parameter level, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the primary `category` parameter's options and default, but that same enum list already appears in the nested schema, and the remaining nested params (wholesaler_ids, source_resource_id, question_asked, exclude_fillers, additional_display_fields) are entirely unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Return Kitces Research advisor practice benchmark data') and scopes it precisely to independent and RIA-affiliated advisors. The enumerated categories make it unmistakably distinct from siblings like GetFundFees or GetTerritoryWealthProfile, which return entirely different 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?

Gives clear usage context: it is a static reference lookup sourced from the 2023–2024 Kitces survey, and it tells the agent that category='all' (the default) retrieves everything. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but no sibling covers this data, so the missing exclusion is minor.

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