compliance_fetch_finra_broker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns registration status, licenses, and disclosure history, indicating a read operation. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the discrepancy between 'name or CRD number' and the schema requiring only CRD number.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide input hints and output expectations. No unnecessary details; every sentence adds value.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers purpose, input, and output summary. However, it lacks information on error cases (e.g., broker not found) and the misleading input hint reduces completeness.

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 description states 'Provide their name or CRD number,' but the input schema only includes a required 'crd_number' parameter with no 'name' field. This directly contradicts the schema and misleads the agent. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add value and introduces confusion.

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 tool's purpose: to verify a financial broker or advisor's registration with FINRA. It specifies the action (verify registration) and the resource (FINRA broker), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_check_sam_exclusion by focusing on FINRA.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to verify' and mentions providing name or CRD number, which gives clear usage context. However, it does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity among siblings.

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