verify_advisor

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns specific data fields and is quick, but does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the advisor is not found. The behavioral coverage is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first defines the tool's function and outputs, the second provides usage guidance and an alternative. No superfluous words are present.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and outputs. It does not address potential errors or prerequisites, but these are less critical for a quick verification check. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for the single parameter 'crd_number'. It does not clarify its meaning, format, or valid ranges, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema type (integer). Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 explicitly states the tool performs a 'quick verification check for an investment advisor' and lists specific outputs (active status, current firm, disclosure summary, risk score, recommendation). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'lookup_advisor' by indicating that tool is for full details.

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 a clear directive: 'Use this for a quick yes/no safety check' and explicitly contrasts with 'lookup_advisor' for full details. This gives an agent unambiguous guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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