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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: results are capped at 25 and sorted by score, the signal is heuristic rather than proof, and each call is billed. The per-call cost and the heuristic caveat are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 return shape is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by two short sentences for the caveat and the price. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical rule list ('peel chains, post-mix consolidation, structuring...') could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description describes the return payload well: a ranked list of up to 25 cases with the rules that fired. The paid-call flow is only partially covered, since the 402/invoice mechanics live in the parameter descriptions, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (l402, pay_with) are already documented in the schema with an enum. The description mentions payment and price but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 a specific resource (laundering-pattern cases scored by this node), the exact threshold (score 40 or more), the time window (last 60 minutes), the cap (up to 25) and the ordering (highest score first). That is far more precise than the sibling names alone convey, and it distinguishes this live feed from per-transaction tools like bitcoin_transaction_aml_check.

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?

Usage is implied by 'this node scored in the last 60 minutes' and 'Heuristic, not proof', which tells an agent this is a monitoring feed rather than an authoritative screen. However, it never says when to prefer it over bitcoin_transaction_aml_check or bitcoin_sanctions_screen, nor any exclusions.

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