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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it notes the source is the SEC IAPD public API, no API key is required, and it covers RIAs registered with the SEC. It also clarifies the scope (registered with SEC) and the workflow relationship to other tools. It doesn't describe pagination or rate limits, but the annotations plus source/scope context make this a strong 4.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet-point usage guidance, a workflow note, and a source note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what it does, what it returns) is front-loaded. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values don't need to be described. The description covers the source, authentication (no API key), scope (SEC-registered RIAs), and workflow relationships. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but for a search tool with an output schema and clear annotations, this is nearly complete. A 4 is warranted rather than 5 because the description doesn't address what happens with partial matches or how many results are returned.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the primary parameter (name) by stating the tool searches 'by name' and gives examples in the schema ('Vanguard', 'Fidelity Investments'). However, the description doesn't explain the other parameters (mcp_prompt_id, question_asked, wholesaler_ids, exclude_fillers, source_resource_id, additional_display_fields, optional_additional_filters), which are documented only in the schema. Since the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for those, and the description covers the core search parameter, a 4 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 clearly states the tool searches the SEC IAPD database for RIA firms by name, and lists the specific return fields (CRD, registration status, AUM, employee count, state, office city). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like SearchBrokerCheckFirm and GetIAPDFirmDetail, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: when you need CRD or AUM for a named RIA firm, when looking up Form ADV data, and when distinguishing RIA firms vs BD firms. It also names alternatives (SearchBrokerCheckFirm for broker-dealers, GetIAPDFirmDetail for full ADV data) and describes a geographic workflow with SearchBrokersByPlace. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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