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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the data source (FINRA BrokerCheck public API) and that no API key is required. It omits rate limits and result-size/pagination behavior, so not quite full marks.

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 purpose sentence followed by tightly scoped bullets and a source note; every line carries information. Slightly long for a single-parameter tool but no wasted prose.

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 needn't be detailed, and the description still previews the payload (employment history, exams, licenses, disclosures). Missing only failure modes and behavior when the CRD is invalid.

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 at 0% for the top-level params object, so the description carries some burden; it explains the key 'crd' parameter's origin (from SearchBrokerCheck) and example format is left to the schema. It says nothing about the other exposed fields (wholesaler_ids, source_resource_id, exclude_fillers, mcp_prompt_id), which are unrelated-looking and unexplained at the description level.

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 ('Retrieve the full FINRA BrokerCheck profile for one individual using their CRD number') and enumerates the returned content. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling SearchBrokerCheck, which only searches rather than returns full profiles.

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 'Use this tool when' bullets give clear context (you have a CRD from SearchBrokerCheck, need employment/qualm data, doing due diligence). It routes the agent from the sibling search tool but never states an explicit when-not or a case where IAPD detail tools would be preferred.

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