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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the exact return fields (CRD, name, registration scope, disclosure flag, employing firms), defines the disclosure flag, and notes the per-name lookup constraint. This is valuable context that the annotations do not convey.

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 three sentences and efficiently covers purpose, return fields, alternative routing, and a usage constraint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words, though the regulatory context sentence is slightly extra. Overall well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns. It lists all key fields and even clarifies the disclosure flag. It does not detail registration scope values (active/inactive) but that is inferable. It mentions the limit parameter via the schema and the bulk caveat. For a simple search tool, this is adequate.

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%: both 'query' and 'limit' have descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning—it only restates that the search is per-name and mentions the limit indirectly via the bulk constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('individual stockbrokers and investment-adviser representatives'), and method ('by name via FINRA BrokerCheck'). It distinguishes from the sibling brokercheck_individual_detail by explicitly noting that detail is for actual disclosure events, and from brokercheck_search_firm by focusing on individuals.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use brokercheck_individual_detail with a returned CRD to see the actual disclosure events.' It also provides a negative constraint: 'Per-name lookup only — not for bulk enumeration.' This clearly routes the agent to the correct sibling and defines the scope.

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