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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.008 USDC via x402), aggregation behavior ('Replaces 6 API calls'), and decision output (PROCEED/REVIEW/FLAG/BLOCK). While it doesn't mention auth or side effects, the tool is a read-only screening operation, making the disclosed cost and return type key transparency elements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by specific actions, output, and cost. Every phrase contributes meaningful information without fluff, achieving high density and clarity.

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 lacking an output schema, the description clearly states the return type (PROCEED/REVIEW/FLAG/BLOCK recommendation). It also explains the scope (watchlist, jurisdiction, forex) and the operational benefit. For a composite tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it, though a bit more detail on the response structure would be ideal.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds semantic context by implying relationships: sender/receiver names for watchlist, country codes for jurisdiction risk, and currency codes for forex corridor rate. This mapping enriches beyond the raw schema, though not exhaustively.

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: 'Cross-border transaction pre-screening' with a specific verb ('checks') and resource (sender/receiver, watchlists, jurisdiction, forex). It lists concrete actions and output types (PROCEED/REVIEW/FLAG/BLOCK), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compliance_watchlist or compliance_jurisdiction_risk by being a composite pre-screening tool.

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 usage context by stating it 'Replaces 6 API calls', signaling that this tool is a more efficient alternative to multiple individual compliance calls. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the functional coverage (watchlist, jurisdiction, forex) makes it clear this is the go-to for a consolidated cross-border screening.

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