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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned fields (CRD number, employer, registration states, exam history), the upstream source (SEC IAPD public API) and that no API key is required. It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior, which keeps it 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?

Purpose and return summary are front-loaded, the when-to-use list is scannable, and sibling routing comes before the source citation. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every block serves a distinct purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description does cover what it returns anyway. However, for a tool with a large set of optional filters and a caching parameter, the description gives an agent no guidance on the non-obvious inputs, leaving a meaningful gap for anything beyond a plain name search.

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% and the wrapper exposes roughly ten sub-parameters (rows, state, wholesaler_ids, source_resource_id, exclude_fillers, additional_display_fields, etc.). The description only conveys name-based lookup and says nothing about state narrowing, row limits, or the cache-reuse semantics of source_resource_id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Search SEC IAPD ... for individual investment advisor representatives (IARs) by name') and immediately distinguishes itself from SearchIAPDFirm and SearchBrokerCheck. An agent can pick this over its near-identical siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets cover the three concrete scenarios (individual not firm, verifying IA registration, named-rep due diligence), and the following lines name the two alternatives with the condition that selects each. Nothing is left to inference.

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