search_broker_dealers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'searches' (implying read-only) and identifies the data source (Form BD), but it does not mention pagination, result ordering, or any other behavioral nuances. The description provides the essentials but lacks richer context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the tool's essence immediately and efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (9 optional params, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It covers the tool's domain, data source, and primary query fields. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or return value shape, but these are partially covered by the schema (cursor, limit) and are generally implied for a search tool. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (3 of 9 params have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does so by naming the primary search dimensions: CRD, name, status, and office location, which maps to bd_crd, name, status, and main_office_city/state/country. This adds valuable meaning beyond the schema. However, sec_number is not mentioned, and limit/cursor are left to the schema, which is acceptable since they already have descriptions.

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 clearly specifies the verb ('Search'), the resource ('registered broker-dealers (Form BD)'), and key search dimensions (CRD, name, status, office location). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_advisers or search_filings by naming the exact entity type.

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 its use case: when an agent needs to find broker-dealer registration data. It provides explicit context for the tool's purpose but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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