search_fund_providers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action, but does not mention expected return format, pagination behavior, or whether results are filtered by default. For a search tool, this is acceptable but minimal; no safety or side-effect context is provided.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It avoids filler and provides illustrative examples without excess length.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives only the basic purpose and does not explain parameter usage, result shape, or pagination. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with complex queries.

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 only 50%, and the tool description does not compensate. It alludes to 'role' via examples but does not explain any of the 8 parameters. Half the parameters (e.g., filer_cik, provider_cik, is_affiliated) lack descriptions in both schema and tool description, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies a clear resource: 'N-CEN registered-fund service providers'. It also lists examples of provider types (custodians, advisers, administrators), making the tool's focus unambiguous and distinct from sibling search tools that target other entity types (e.g., advisers, broker-dealers).

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 the tool should be used when searching for N-CEN service providers, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions. Given the large set of sibling search tools, some guidance on when this specific tool is preferred would be helpful, but the resource name is self-explanatory.

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