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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important limitations—that AUM, client counts, and detailed narratives live in the filing PDFs, not in the profile—and lists the exact fields returned. This is behavioral context beyond the annotations, particularly useful since there is no output schema.

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 with no fluff: purpose and identifier in the first, return contents in the second, and limitations/guidance in the third. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes value.

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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the return fields, the limitations, and the source of the identifier. Without an output schema, this is enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret its results.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the crd parameter, including an example. The description adds the cross-reference that the CRD is the firm_source_id returned by adv_search_firm, which clarifies how to obtain a valid value. This is a meaningful addition over the structured definition.

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 ('Get'), resource ('SEC Form ADV / IAPD profile'), and the exact identifier (CRD number). It also enumerates the returned fields and differentiates itself from adv_search_firm by specifying the input source. An agent can clearly tell this retrieves a firm profile rather than searching for firms.

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 explicitly references adv_search_firm as the source of the CRD number, establishing a clear usage context. It also notes that detailed AUM and disciplinary narratives are not returned and directs users to the PDF links, which is a useful when-not-to-use condition. It doesn't compare against other sibling tools like entity_profile, but the guidance is sufficient for the main workflow.

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