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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact return fields, explaining the has_disclosures flag, and stating the per-name lookup constraint. It does not describe edge cases like partial matches, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, the return fields are compactly listed, and the important constraint 'Per-name lookup only' is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and its main limitation. There is no output schema, but the listed return fields compensate. Minor omissions like matching behavior or empty-result handling do not prevent correct invocation.

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 100%, with both query and limit documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by firm name and per-name only, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('brokerage / broker-dealer firms'), names the data source (FINRA BrokerCheck), and lists the key output fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling individual-search tools by emphasizing firms and 'Per-name lookup 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 implies when to use the tool: when searching for firms by name. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like brokercheck_search_individual or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is more implicit than explicit.

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