Jithox EU Counterparty Sanctions Preflight

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that each result includes source, publication date, checksum, and retrieval time, and states possible statuses ('found', 'not_found', 'unavailable'). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context beyond them.

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, front-loading the main purpose and adding only essential details in subsequent sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter, result contents, and limitations. It is adequate for understanding the tool's role, though it could explicitly state the logicalId must come from a prior screen.

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 100% with a single parameter completely described. The description reinforces that the logicalId comes from a prior screen candidate, adding no new format or validation details beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns the full official listing detail for a logicalId from a prior screen, listing specific fields like names, programme, legal basis, and statuses. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is screening evidence only, not a legal determination or clearance.

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 specifies it should be used after a prior screen and clarifies it is not a legal/compliance determination or clearance. It implies correct usage context but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond negation.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include source, publication date, checksum, and retrieval time, and mentions 'found'/'unavailable' states, providing extra context beyond annotations.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and packs in key details (fields, result attributes, disclaimer) efficiently.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior. It specifies return fields, states it's reference only, and mentions data freshness (snapshot, checksum).

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline score of 4 as per guidelines for zero-parameter tools.

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 enumerates EU sanctions regimes, including specific fields (regulation/legal basis, since date, subject count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sanctions_listing and screening tools by specifying it's the 'policy-layer read'.

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 implies use for listing regimes, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or use alternatives. However, sibling tool names provide context, and the tool is simple with no parameters, making usage clear.

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

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

Adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: idempotent, Ed25519-signed, commits to hashed inputs (no raw PII), snapshot checksum, retrieval times, decision states. Explicitly states what the receipt does NOT attest (clearance, 'not sanctioned' claim, legal/compliance determination). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: first sentence states core action and properties, second clarifies what it attests, third sets expectations and limitations. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists (not shown but indicated), annotations cover safety, and description thoroughly covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics, the description is complete for this tool's moderate complexity.

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 provides descriptions for all 2 parameters, but description adds value: specifies bundle contents should be hashed inputs, sources, decision states (no raw PII) and createdAt should be an ISO timestamp. This goes beyond schema's minimal descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool bundles screening checks into an idempotent Ed25519-signed receipt, specifying the exact verb (bundle, commit, attest) and resource (screening checks into a receipt). Distinguishes from siblings like screen_sanctioned_identifier by focusing on receipt preparation rather than screening or listing.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is for creating provable evidence of screening, not for clearance or legal determination. Implies usage after screening checks are performed. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but context from siblings and description clarifies its specific role.

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

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: exact match, no fuzziness, result options, snapshot scope, and non-legal nature. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive; description reinforces and expands with operational details.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundant words. Front-loaded with key behavior, then results, then scope/limitations. Every sentence adds value.

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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, behavior, scope, and limitations adequately. It addresses potential misinterpretations (not legal clearance, not fuzzy) and clarifies snapshot nature.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description repeats the parameter types ('passport / national id / registration / other') and mentions the identifier value, but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a deterministic exact match of an identifier against listed designations, listing identifier types and possible results. It distinguishes from the sibling 'screen_sanctioned_name' by focusing on identifiers rather than names.

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?

Explicitly states no fuzzy matching, implying fuzzy checks should use another tool (e.g., screen_sanctioned_name). Also clarifies it is not a legal/compliance determination, guiding appropriate use. Lacks explicit naming of alternatives, but context is clear.

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

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: deterministic match scores, response categories ('clear', 'needs_review', etc.), and guarantees about no false clears on outage or fuzzy input. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and well-structured: first sentence states action and source, second explains output categories, third covers limitations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 that the tool has optional parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations provide safety guarantees, the description is fully complete. It covers return values, limitations, and usage context.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides overall context for the 'name' parameter but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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: screening a counterparty name against the EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List. It specifies the output categories and distinguishes from sibling tools like screen_sanctioned_identifier by focusing on name screening.

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?

Provides clear context that the tool is for screening evidence only, not a legal/compliance determination or clearance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like screen_sanctioned_identifier or get_sanctions_listing.

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