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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result ordering by disclosure count and the approximate dataset size (~2,291 advisers), which helps the agent anticipate result shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The primary purpose (what the dataset is) is front-loaded, with the filtering options relegated to the trailing clause.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the underlying filing (Form ADV Item 11), the ranking dimension, and the dataset magnitude, which is enough for an agent to know what comes back. It stops short of describing pagination behavior for the limit parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes further by spelling out the value vocabularies for 'type' (RIA/ERA) and 'kind' (criminal/regulatory/civil), which the schema lacks as enums and only describes in loose prose.

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 resource (SEC-registered investment advisers), the exact data basis (Form ADV Item 11 disciplinary disclosures), and the ordering (ranked by disclosure count). An agent can distinguish this from adviser_search because the description scopes it to disciplinary-flagged entities only.

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 enumerates the filters (state, type, kind) so the agent can infer how to narrow a query, but it never states when to use this tool versus the sibling adviser_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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