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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait – deterministic, formal arbitration via a constraint graph with an explicit anti-hallucination claim – but says nothing about whether the result is a binding verdict, what happens with incomplete facts, permission requirements, or latency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and qualifies it with parentheticals. Dense but not padded; the 'zéro hallucination' clause is borderline marketing but brief.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum say what the tool returns (a compliance verdict, blockers, required documents). It omits the output entirely and never mentions the optional facts/entities inputs, leaving the contract of the call under-specified.

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 every parameter (facts, origin, hs_code, entities, destination) is already documented with format examples in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (arbitrates) and resource (regulatory compliance over a cross-border flow), and enumerates the covered domains (customs, OFAC/EU sanctions, export control). No siblings exist to distinguish from, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool decides.

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 its context of use (cross-border flows requiring a regulatory compliance determination) but never states when to call it versus not, nor any prerequisites such as requiring origin/destination/hs_code to be known in advance. Usage must be inferred.

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