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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint all set, the safety profile is already established by annotations. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it states the data source is the 'FINRA BrokerCheck public API' and that 'No API key required,' plus the return fields include CRD and disclosure status, which are useful behavioral details not present in the 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 longer than the minimal ideal, but every section earns its place: use-case bullets, a geographic workflow, and a source note. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action and returned fields before the workflow details, with only minor redundancy around the word 'registered.'

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, the sequential workflow with sibling tools, the narrow-by-state option, and the follow-up GetBrokerCheckDetail route. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description only adds meaning for the optional 'state' parameter ('2-letter code') and implies name-based search, while the schema itself carries detailed descriptions with examples for name, rows, start, state, filters, and more. Given the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage at the top level, the description does not fully compensate for the nested 'params' wrapper, but the nested schema fills most gaps, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Search FINRA BrokerCheck for registered individual brokers and financial representatives by name.' It also lists the exact returned data (CRD number, current firm, registration status, disclosures) and explicitly distinguishes itself from SearchBrokerCheckFirm and GetBrokerCheckDetail, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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' section lists concrete conditions (find CRD number, verify registration, enrich missing CRD) and the geographic workflow maps the sequence of sibling tools, ending with 'use this tool to find individuals at that firm.' It also directs users to GetBrokerCheckDetail for the full profile, giving clear when-to-use and alternative routing.

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