search_advisors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It discloses that the response includes external links and that the tool supports partial name matches. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any potential side effects. Overall, it provides sufficient transparency for a search tool.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives a concrete example, and the third provides follow-up instructions. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no required fields, a hidden output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: search criteria, follow-up action, and fallback. It explains the link to lookup_advisor. However, it does not describe the output schema or what fields are returned, which would be helpful. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 adds meaning for three parameters (name, state, firm) by explaining that name can be full or last name, and that state and firm are search criteria. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates but misses the limit parameter.

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 search for investment advisors by name, state, or firm. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_advisor by specifying the follow-up action, and it provides a clear fallback recommendation when no results are found.

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 instructs when to use lookup_advisor after searching, and what to do if no results are found (check FINRA/SEC with provided links). This provides clear guidance on tool usage and alternatives.

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