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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to reassert safety. It adds useful behavioral context by naming the public directory source, the fact that it returns matching firms rather than full profiles, and that adv_firm_profile is needed for full detail.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first defines action/resource/returns, the second routes to the sibling. Everything present earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides action, source, returned fields, and next-step routing. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and know what to expect.

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% with descriptions and examples for query and limit. The description reinforces that query is a firm name but does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search'), a precise resource ('SEC-registered investment adviser (RIA) and broker-dealer firms'), and a method (by name via IAPD / Form ADV). It enumerates returned fields and distinguishes itself from the sibling adv_firm_profile by reserving full detail for that tool.

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 routes follow-up use to adv_firm_profile with a returned CRD, which is a clear when-to-use next-step. It does not explicitly list exclusion cases (e.g., searching individuals vs firms), though the firm-vs-individual boundary is inferable from the name and sibling adv_search_individual.

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