get_firm_info

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

With no annotations, the description must stand alone. It indicates a read operation ('Get information'), but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the obvious. It is adequate but not enriched.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise without being overly terse, though it could benefit from light structuring.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists (though not evaluated), the description sufficiently covers the retrieval of firm information. It does not mention optional parameters (none exist) and is adequate for a simple tool.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'firm_crd' parameter (likely a CRD number). The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of explicit semantics leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 retrieves information about an investment advisory firm, listing specific data types like advisor count, disclosure rates, and statistics. While distinct from sibling tools (which target advisors or global stats), it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts.

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