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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond this by disclosing what data is returned and the authentication reality ('No API key required', public SEC API). No contradiction with annotations exists—'Retrieve' and 'disclosures' align with read-only/idempotent semantics.

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 is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: what it returns, three concrete usage triggers, and source/auth details. The when-to-use bullets are scannable and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content. Efficient and well-structured.

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-primary-input retrieval tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: the input requirement, the expected data, when to use it, and the data source plus auth. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is present, and the description complements rather than duplicates it.

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 0% at the top level, but the nested $defs carry detailed property descriptions, mitigating the gap. The description adds real meaning for the primary parameter—it names the CRD, states it comes from SearchIAPDIndividual, and implies format via the example. However, auxiliary parameters (mcp_prompt_id, wholesaler_ids, source_resource_id, etc.) are not mentioned in the description at all, so the burden is not fully compensated for those.

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 ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('full SEC IAPD profile for one individual IAR'), and the key discriminator ('using their CRD number'). It also enumerates the return content (registration history, exam qualifications, employment history, disclosures). Unlike siblings, it is clearly individualized for a single IAR rather than a firm or a search, so an agent can distinguish it from GetIAPDFirmDetail and SearchIAPDIndividual with no schema inspection.

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?

Provides three explicit use-this-when bullets, including the crucial precondition ('You have a CRD from SearchIAPDIndividual') that routes the agent to the correct source tool. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to the alternatives (e.g., SearchIAPDIndividual for name-based lookup), so exclusions are left implicit, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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