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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the exact output fields and their value ranges, the underlying data sources (FATF, Basel AML Index 2025, live sanctions screening, ARM classification), and an implicit side effect — entity_name is screened against sanctions lists. It also states the billing model ($12.00 per call, charged to API-key credits, refused on low balance, free for bank portal sessions), covering cost and a failure mode.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, sources, use-when and billing in a single scannable block using ALL-CAPS labels. Given there is no output schema, the enumerated return fields are load-bearing rather than padding, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates: return values and their ranges are spelled out, sources are named, the billing/failure behavior is disclosed, and usage scenarios are given. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this three-parameter tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including examples, enum-like value hints and the note that jurisdiction is the largest scoring input. The prose only restates that the score derives from jurisdiction, sector and sanctions exposure; it adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and artifact — produce a composite 0-100 financial-crime risk score for a company — and enumerates the three driving inputs (jurisdiction, sector, sanctions exposure). This clearly separates it by output type from siblings like screen_sanctions and verify_entity, but no sibling is named or explicitly excluded, which is the rubric's threshold for a 5.

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?

"USE WHEN you need a single comparable risk figure for onboarding thresholds, portfolio ranking or periodic review" gives concrete triggering scenarios. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to screen_sanctions/verify_entity as the alternative for single-purpose lookups, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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