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

Annotations are standard operational hints (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description adds specific, high-level functional behavioral limits by clarifying that it focuses on risk indicators rather than comprehensive legal or safety verification of parties or assets.

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?

It uses two highly dense, perfectly phrased sentences. Every word contributes to defining the scope and limits of the tool, leaving no fluff.

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 the complexity (10 parameters) and the wealth of sibling tools, this description successfully defines the tool's niche in the risk verification flow, clearly stating its input requirements and boundaries.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds conceptual grouping by lumping IBAN checks, country data, viewing indicators, and listing factors into one cohesive workflow, which is a helpful semantic organization for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool's function is to 'Combine deposit identifier checks with supplied country, viewing and listing indicators' to provide a risk summary. It distinguishes itself from pure validator tools (like iban_check) by focusing on the holistic assessment.

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 provides explicit exclusion criteria, stating what the tool does not verify ('Does not verify landlord identity, property ownership or safety of payment'). This is crucial for preventing the agent from relying on this tool as a final vetting step.

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