license.broker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It outlines return fields but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. The description implies read-only behavior but without explicit confirmation. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is a single well-structured sentence after the tool name and source. It front-loads key information (FINRA BrokerCheck) and efficiently lists search methods and return fields. No wasted words; every sentence adds 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of search capabilities and return fields. It lacks details on pagination (limit/offset behavior) and error cases, but is sufficient for a straightforward lookup tool. Completeness is strong but not exhaustive.

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 50%; only crd and query have descriptions. The description reinforces that query is for free-text (name+firm) and crd is for direct number, adding context beyond schema. However, limit and offset lack description both in schema and description, so no added value for those 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?

Description clearly states the tool is for FINRA BrokerCheck, searching registered US brokers/investment advisors by free-text query or CRD number. It specifies the return fields (CRD, name, aliases, scopes, disclosure flag, industry-start date, employments), distinguishing it from sibling tools like license.medical or business.entity-screen.

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?

Description explains search methods (free-text query including name+firm, or CRD number) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like person.cross-registry or other license tools. No explicit when/when-not context or prerequisites provided.

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