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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the source is the SEC IAPD public API and that no API key is required. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses a clean bullet list for usage guidance. It is slightly repetitive: the note at the end about RIAs vs BDs restates a point already made in the third bullet, which is a minor waste.

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?

Given the complexity, annotations, output schema, and sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, alternatives, source, and authentication requirements. The output schema handles return values, so the brief mention of returned fields is a helpful summary rather than a gap.

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 mentions searching by name, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself contains rich, detailed descriptions for all nested parameters (name, wholesaler_ids, source_resource_id, etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is self-sufficient.

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 (Search) and resource (SEC IAPD database for RIA firms) and explicitly distinguishes RIAs (IAPD) from broker-dealers (BrokerCheck). An agent can tell it apart from siblings like SearchBrokerCheckFirm or SearchIAPDIndividual without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use bullets (need CRD/AUM, looking up Form ADV data, distinguishing RIA vs BD) and names alternatives (SearchBrokerCheckFirm for BDs, GetIAPDFirmDetail for full ADV data). It also gives a geographic workflow linking SearchBrokersByPlace to this tool.

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