lookup_advisor

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns regulatory data from SEC IAPD and lists specific fields. It also instructs on experience calculation and web search integration. Missing details like data freshness, rate limits, or error handling, but the coverage is good for a simple lookup.

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 structured with a purpose statement followed by usage instructions. It is about 150 words, front-loaded, and each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but is appropriate.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (assumed to describe return fields), the description covers the tool's functionality and output handling. It does not address error cases or invalid inputs, but for the complexity level, it is sufficiently complete.

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 mentions the CRM number parameter but does not explain its format (e.g., numeric, length). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds the basic meaning but lacks detail. For a single integer parameter that is domain-specific, this is minimally adequate.

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 clear verb ('Look up') and specifies the resource ('registered investment advisor') with a unique identifier ('CRD number'). It enumerates the returned data fields, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_advisors' (which likely supports different query parameters) and 'get_firm_info' (firm-level).

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 provides explicit instructions on how to handle the returned data: always include all fields, calculate years of experience, and perform a web search for a 'full profile'. It implies the tool's limitation (no practice name, team, etc.) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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