compliance_fetch_finra_broker

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no side effects, idempotent, US-only, 24-hour cache, and the types of returned data (registration status, qualifications, disclosure history, employment history). No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 efficient and front-loaded, but includes a detailed feedback instruction that adds length. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more condensed. Still, no unnecessary repetition.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input format, constraints, behavioral traits, output summary, usage guidance, and fallback. It is fully self-contained and leaves no gaps.

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?

The only parameter, crd_number, is fully described: format (string of digits), example ('1234567'), requirement (required), and constraint (CRD number only, no name lookup). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema type 'string'.

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 action ('Fetch'), the specific resource ('FINRA BrokerCheck registration'), and the target ('US broker or investment adviser by CRD number'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compliance_search_npi_by_name and compliance_fetch_npi_provider, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool when the CRD number is available, and directs to an alternative (compliance_search_npi_by_name) for healthcare providers. Also provides a feedback fallback procedure if the result is insufficient. This covers when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives.

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