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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial beyond that: what a verdict means operationally, which regions are flagged, that results come from public government lists and filings and may be stale, that fuzzy name matches can produce false positives or miss variants, and the explicit 'informational only, not a compliance determination' disclaimer.

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 value proposition and output contents are front-loaded, and the middle sentences on verdict rules earn their place. It runs five sentences and the closing caveat sentence is somewhat dense, but nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description effectively describes the return shape (red-flag summary, verdict, source links) and links to verdict rules. With 16 parameters and 100% schema coverage plus annotations, the only missing layer is return data, which is addressed.

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% and the schema descriptions themselves carry rich matching semantics (last-9-digit phone matching, OFAC 50 percent rule on owners, sanctioned-region address flags). The prose adds no parameter-level detail 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 the specific verb and deliverable ('One-call due-diligence report') and enumerates its components: SEC profile, sanctions screen, federal exclusions, domain signals, state registry link, red-flag summary, verdict, and source links. The 'one-call' framing cleanly distinguishes it from the granular siblings (screen_sanctions, company_profile, domain_age, state_registry_link) as the aggregating 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?

It gives concrete decision rules for acting on output: do not pay or onboard on 'hold', ask a person on 'review', and verify every match against the official source before acting. It stops short of naming when to use this aggregation versus the individual sibling tools, which is the one selection gap.

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