search_form_crs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' which implies a safe read, but it does not describe pagination behavior, return shape, filtering semantics, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral nuance beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 that immediately specifies the action and target, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise and easy to scan.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is materially incomplete. It does not describe the response structure, the meaning of customer relationship summaries, or the search/filter behavior. Siblings and schema partially help, but the description alone leaves critical gaps for an agent to 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 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does provide thematic context (firm services, fees, conflicts, disciplinary history) that maps to some params like disciplinary_history_flag and min_professionals, but it does not explain six of the ten parameters (e.g., form_sub_type, filed_after, firm_crd, etc.), leaving significant gaps.

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 states the verb 'Search' with a specific resource ('Form CRS customer relationship summaries') and enumerates key content facets (firm services, fees, conflicts, disciplinary history), distinguishing it from generic search tools like search_filings or full_text_search.

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 implies use for finding Form CRS summaries but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like search_advisers or search_broker_dealers, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Context signals show many sibling search tools, so usage context is only implied.

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