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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a cost of $0.005 USDC via x402, the return of a structured compliance packet with unique packetId, and the one-call scope. It doesn't cover failure modes or authentication, but the added cost/output details go beyond schema.

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 compliance framework, and each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, what it returns, and what it costs. Zero extraneous wording.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context: purpose, output format (compliance packet with packetId), and cost. It lacks operational details like authentication prerequisites or error behavior, but the core information for selection and invocation is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into categories (wallets, entity names, jurisdictions) but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It adds no syntax or format details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 screens both originator and beneficiary wallets, entity names, and jurisdictions for FATF R16 Travel Rule compliance in one call. This specific verb+resource distinction differentiates it from sibling tools like compliance_wallet or transaction_screen.

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: FATF R16 Travel Rule compliance and the value of a single-call screening for both parties. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives such as compliance_wallet or compliance_watchlist, so a minor gap in exclusionary guidance.

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