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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that this is a public directory lookup and spells out the return payload, but it does not disclose edge behaviors like partial matching, pagination limits beyond the schema, or data freshness. That is reasonable given annotation coverage, but not exceptional.

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 with zero waste: the first states the action and target, the second lists the return values. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word 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?

With a simple 2-parameter schema that is fully described, strong annotations, and a description that already explains return fields, the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is explicit routing to adv_search_firm, but that is more a usage-guideline nicety and does not hinder correct calling.

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% — both 'query' and 'limit' already have clear descriptions and the example values add context. The tool description adds only 'by name' qualifier and output fields, which does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search individual investment-adviser representatives / brokers by name via the IAPD public directory.' It also enumerates the exact returned fields (CRD number, name, registration scope, disclosure flag, employing firms), making it unmistakable from sibling tools like adv_search_firm.

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 clearly implies the tool is for looking up individual representatives/brokers by name, and the sibling list includes adv_search_firm for firm-level searches. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this for individuals, not firms' or mention any exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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