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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the data is dated 2026-02-13 and each call costs $0.005, which directly affects agent decisions. It does not describe the response shape or error cases, but for a non-mutating lookup this is above-average disclosure.

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 four short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds input format, data date, and cost—each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input format, data vintage, and pricing. It could be more complete by describing the exact return values, but the core selection and invocation needs are met well.

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?

The schema only describes api_key in detail, leaving country minimally specified. The tool description compensates by stating that 'country' accepts an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code or a country name, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. The api_key requirement and funding path are already thoroughly documented in the schema's parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Classify') with a clear resource ('a country's AML risk') and explicitly names the reference lists (FATF black/grey and EU high-risk-third-countries). This fully distinguishes it from the sibling screening tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: any need to classify a country's AML risk against specific regulatory lists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but none of the sibling tools appear to overlap directly, so a no-exclusions clear-context score is appropriate.

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