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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool aggregates evidence and returns decision support, but it does not disclose whether external calls are made, whether any state changes occur, what the compact evidence result contains, or how results should be interpreted.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful caveat. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

The description is adequate for a high-level composite tool but leaves gaps: there is no output schema, no explicit return-value description, and no guidance on how this relates to the sibling tools. An agent could call it correctly, but it would not know what evidence fields to expect or when a single-purpose sibling is more appropriate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild value by linking 'domain/company-name consistency' to the name and domain parameters and implying country is relevant to sanctions screening, but it does not explicitly explain each parameter's role beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific resource and action: a pre-transaction business counterparty check for AI agents. It enumerates the exact evidence components combined (legal-entity resolution, sanctions screening, RDAP domain evidence, domain/company-name consistency), so the tool's scope is unambiguous even without referencing sibling names.

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 phrase 'Pre-transaction' and the exclusion 'not legal or transaction approval' give useful context, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this composite tool versus the sibling tools check_domain, resolve_company, and screen_sanctions. Usage is implied rather than stated: use this when a combined evidence result is needed.

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