Search Investment Advisers

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden and does so richly: two-phase matching (strict all-word first, broadening to any-word only on no strict matches), the returned fields (CRD, main office, AUM, employee count, as-of date), and the sort order (largest by assets first).

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler: the search scope leads, matching semantics follow, return shape comes third, and the hand-off to the sibling tool closes. Everything is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields and their ordering, and it explains the follow-up path via CRD. An agent has everything needed to call it and chain 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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by characterizing how the query string is matched (punctuation-independent, strict then broad) rather than just restating that it is part of a firm name.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a precise resource (the tracked SEC Form ADV adviser set), scoped to firm name. It is distinguishable from sibling searchers like SearchFunds and SearchInstitutions by naming the adviser universe, and it names GetInvestmentAdviser as the complementary tool.

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?

Gives clear context for the search and explicitly routes the agent to GetInvestmentAdviser for the CRD follow-up. It does not state when NOT to use this versus other search tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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