SENTINEL Compliance Intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries disclosure duties. It reveals the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) and the underlying data sources, but does not mention output format, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the word 'Get'.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the cost as a necessary caveat. Every word 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?

A simple one-parameter tool, but with no output schema, the description should specify what type/range the risk score takes to make results actionable. It also doesn't clarify behavior for unsupported country codes, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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 already fully documents country_code with format and examples at 100% coverage. The description adds the context of 179 countries but no additional parameter-specific syntax or constraints, so it stays at baseline.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves a composite risk score for 179 countries, naming specific data sources (FATF, CPI, Basel AML Index). This distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools like watchlist or transaction screen.

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?

Implied usage for country-level compliance risk assessment, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. Sibling tools with overlapping compliance functions are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait: the cost of $0.005 USDC via x402, which is valuable context for a paid tool. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements beyond payment.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes cost information without any unnecessary words. Every 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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it searches and the associated cost. It lacks details on response format or pagination, but such omissions are minor for a straightforward registry search.

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%, and the parameter description already explains that 'query' is an 'Entity or person name to search'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a search action targeting the Mauritius FSC registry and ICIJ offshore leak connections, making it distinct from siblings like compliance_jurisdiction_risk or compliance_watchlist. The verb 'Search' and the specific data sources clearly define the tool's purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling compliance tools. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

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 discloses cost ($0.003 USDC) and the specific lists checked, which adds transparency. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, return format, or potential side effects, though 'screen' implies a non-mutating read operation. The cost disclosure is valuable but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, data sources, and cost. There is no verbosity or wasted detail, making it easy to parse.

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 screening tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, data sources, and cost. It lacks alternative guidance, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly. Given the tool's simplicity, this is close to complete.

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%: the 'address' parameter is self-explanatory and 'chain' has a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents both parameters and possible values (btc/eth/trx/auto). Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Screen a blockchain wallet address against sanctioned/blacklisted crypto addresses' with a specific verb (screen), resource (wallet address), and scope (specific watchlists). It distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance_watchlist or transaction_screen by naming exact data sources (OFAC SDN, USDT/USDC Blacklists, etc.).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to check a crypto wallet address against sanctions lists. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap compared to a perfect 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the cost ($0.003 USDC via x402) and the compound screening nature. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe the return behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds important operational context (cost and backend connection). Every 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about what the tool returns and any side effects. It mentions convergence detection but does not clarify the response format or additional behaviors. It is adequate but incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only maps address and name from the tool's compound screen, and does not add meaning to list, chain, or the enum values. No extra parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb 'screen' and clearly defines the compound resource (wallet address + entity name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compliance_wallet by emphasizing the combined Web2+Web3 screen and convergence detection.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when a combined wallet and entity name screening is needed, in one call. It bridges blockchain wallets to traditional sanctions databases, giving a clear contextual indication of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.005 USDC via x402) and lists the watchlist sources, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any rate limits or caveats.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and scope, then adds the cost detail. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 explain the return values or behavior. It does not mention what the response looks like, match details, or any limitations. For a screening tool, this is a notable gap.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Therefore, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('global watchlist records'), listing concrete lists (OFAC, UN, EU, PEP, Interpol, crypto). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like transaction_screen or travel_rule_screen, which focus on transactions or travel rules rather than general entity screening.

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: it is for screening any entity against global watchlists. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention cases where other compliance tools would be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the tool is paid ('Costs $0.010 USDC via x402'), aggregates data, and has country-specific coverage (Mauritius has all 7 feeds). However, it does not describe the output format, potential errors, or side effects (if any), leaving room for ambiguity.

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 three sentences, tightly packed with relevant details: tool purpose, content composition, country-specific coverage, replacement of 8 calls, and cost. No redundant or filler words, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it produces (compliance risk + economic data), coverage specifics, and cost. It lacks details on output format or edge cases (e.g., unsupported countries), but given the simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'country_code' with an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by implying that country coverage varies (e.g., 'For Mauritius (MU) includes all 7 oracle feeds'), but does not elaborate on parameter behavior 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 clearly states the tool's function as a 'Complete country intelligence brief' combining compliance risk assessment and live economic data. It also specifies content for Mauritius (all 7 oracle feeds) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by aggregating multiple data sources, as indicated by 'Replaces 8 API calls'.

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 when to use the tool: when a consolidated country brief is needed instead of making multiple individual API calls (e.g., forex, macro, weather). It also mentions cost and coverage for Mauritius, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning the cost ($0.005 USDC via x402) and the 'all feeds' aggregation behavior. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden, but it remains vague about what 'economic pulse' actually includes, response format, or data freshness, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, the first front-loading the core purpose, the second adding cost information. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what data to expect, but 'economic pulse' is metaphorical and unclear. While cost and aggregation are covered, the lack of specific feed categories or return shape makes the description incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the result.

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?

Since the tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), there is nothing required to explain. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not mention parameters.

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 with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('complete Mauritius economic pulse'), and scope ('ALL feeds in one call'). It distinguishes itself from sibling data tools like macro_indicators or stock_market by emphasizing aggregation of all feeds in a single call.

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 'ALL feeds in one call' clearly signals that this tool is appropriate for obtaining a comprehensive snapshot efficiently, implicitly contrasting with individual data tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusionary guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by naming the included checks, noting the composite risk score, and revealing the cost of $0.010 USDC via x402. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the composite score is computed, or any side effects beyond cost, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 compact and information-dense: two sentences that list components, state replacement value, and disclose cost. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core purpose before adding contextual details.

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 tool is a compound package with medium complexity. The description explains what it includes and its cost, but lacks information about the output structure or how the composite risk score is presented. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide some expectation of return values; it does not. Still, it is more complete than minimal and would allow selection, though not full invocation confidence.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the description is not required to elaborate. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema already documents both 'query' and 'include_forex' clearly.

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 states it is a 'Compound entity screening package' and enumerates its components (watchlist, jurisdiction risk, Mauritius FSC, forex, composite risk score). It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'Replaces 5 separate API calls', making its scope and aggregation clear. However, it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'screen', relying on the noun phrase.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a comprehensive due diligence screening is needed, as opposed to calling individual sibling tools. It states it replaces 5 separate API calls, which provides usage context. It doesn't offer explicit exclusions or alternatives by name, but the component list maps to sibling tools, giving clear situational guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the main operations performed (lookup, screening, attestation) and mentions 'FREE,' but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any prerequisites, rate limits, or potential side effects. The mention of a 'signed JWT attestation' adds some behavioral context about the output format, but deeper transparency is missing.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose (registry lookup + screening + attestation), and the second sentence lists the outputs. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the key outputs but leaves some gaps: it does not explain what 'coldStartSignals' means or how to interpret the signed JWT attestation. While the core purpose is covered, the lack of detail on these domain-specific terms could confuse an agent, making the description incomplete for a fully self-contained understanding.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'address' parameter with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description only says 'for any wallet address,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs an ERC-8004 registry lookup, sanctions screening, and signed JWT attestation for a wallet address, with specific outputs (agent registration status, operator wallet, screening results, coldStartSignals) listed. This distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools by focusing on the ERC-8004 agent registry and the 'Know Your Agent' concept.

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 use for checking agent registration and screening, but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like compliance_wallet or transaction_screen, nor state when to prefer this tool over others. The phrase 'for any wallet address' gives a general context but lacks exclusions or explicit when-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'FREE' (cost) and does not disclose the read-only nature, response format, or any operational constraints. For a query tool, this is minimal and does not provide meaningful transparency beyond the annotations' absence.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. 'Get SENTINEL facilitator capabilities' immediately states the action and resource. The trailing 'FREE' is a minor addition but does not detract from conciseness.

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, the description provides a reasonable list of content categories, covering the main aspects of facilitator capabilities. It is sufficient for a simple, no-parameter tool, though it could be more explicit about the response format or usage context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by specifying the type of information returned (payment schemes, networks, assets, compliance features), giving users a clear idea of what the tool offers. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'SENTINEL facilitator capabilities', listing the included categories (payment schemes, networks, assets, compliance features). This provides a distinct purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like facilitator_kya, which may focus on KYA rather than capabilities.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention any sibling tools. It simply states what it does, leaving usage context unaddressed.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) and data source (Bank of Mauritius). However, it does not describe the output format, default behavior when currency is omitted, or any rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key constraint (cost). No filler words; every clause adds value. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the source, the data type, and the cost. It does not explain the return structure, but for a simple rate lookup this is a minor omission. Overall, the description provides enough context for correct use.

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 input schema covers the sole parameter 'currency' with full documentation, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves MUR exchange rates from Bank of Mauritius. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource 'MUR exchange rates from Bank of Mauritius' fully defines the purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like macro_indicators or stock_market.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: whenever MUR exchange rates are needed. It does not mention alternatives, but no direct forex sibling exists, so the context is clear. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit 'use this when' statement.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by mentioning 'Costs $0.001 USDC via x402' and 'from STC Mauritius,' which informs the agent about pricing and data source. However, it does not describe the response format, pagination, or any rate limits. Since it's a 'get' operation, the reader infers read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and a critical cost detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description is mostly complete for basic usage. However, there is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains beyond 'prices.' It does not specify whether the response is a list, a map, or the currency/units used, which is a notable gap that leaves the agent uncertain about the return format.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'product' with its description 'Optional product (mogas, gasoil, lpg). Omit for all.' The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get petroleum retail prices from STC Mauritius.' This is a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are mostly compliance, financial, or data tools, so there is no overlap.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when an agent should choose this over other tools. The sibling tools are unrelated, but even a simple statement about the intended use case (e.g., when fuel price data is needed) would improve this dimension.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable detail about the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) and the dataset count, but does not disclose the response format, pagination, authentication, or other side effects. This is partial transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core function ('Search 812+ Mauritius government datasets') and then provides the key cost detail. There is no redundant information.

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 tool with one string parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical constraint (cost). It does not specify the return format, but the simple nature of the tool makes this an acceptable gap. The description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the only parameter (q), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('Mauritius government datasets'), and provides a quantitative scope ('812+'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are focused on compliance, monitoring, and financial data.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools. However, the unique purpose of searching government datasets makes its intended use clear by implication. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds value by mentioning the $0.002 USDC x402 payment requirement, but it does not disclose return format, failure modes, or other behavioral traits. Adequate but incomplete.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the cost caveat earns its place. No redundant wording.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, and pricing. It lacks a brief note on output format, but the low complexity and full schema coverage keep it nearly complete.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single optional 'indicator' parameter and lists all valid values. The description only repeats a partial list (GDP, CPI, unemployment, tourism) without adding extra meaning 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'Mauritius macro-economic indicators' with example metrics (GDP, CPI, unemployment, tourism), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like monetary_policy or stock_market.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as country_brief or monetary_policy; no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The cost note is useful but does not constitute usage guidance.

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

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the cost ($0.002 USDC via x402), which an agent would not know otherwise. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and omits other behavioral details such as response format, idempotency, or any potential side effects, leaving gaps.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The additional cost information is concise and relevant, with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what data is returned (rates) and the cost, but does not describe the response structure or data format. Given the simplicity, this is mostly complete, but it would benefit from clarifying the format or freshness of the data.

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?

There are zero parameters in the input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter meaning, but none is needed since the tool requires no inputs. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with no properties.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bank of Mauritius Key Repo Rate and Prime Lending Rates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forex_rates or macro_indicators, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states explicit prerequisites nor mentions exclusions or alternative tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the re-screening behavior, the return of current alert state, and the cost ($0.003 USDC via x402). It does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, but the verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, and the cost note is a useful behavioral trait.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential behavioral and cost information. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what it does, the input, the output ('current alert state'), and the cost. It could mention return value details or error behavior, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with a clear description for subscription_id, so the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies, as the description does not compensate with additional details about the parameter.

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 purpose: 'Check monitoring subscription status.' It goes further to explain the mechanism ('Re-screens the subscribed wallet/entity against the latest database') and the output ('returns current alert state'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitor_subscribe and compliance checks.

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: it is for checking an existing monitoring subscription and returning the current alert state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 30-day duration, the behavior when a target appears on blacklists ('status flips to alerted'), the optional webhook for push notifications, and the cost ($0.010 USDC via x402). It does not mention renewal, cancellation, or post-subscription error handling, but covers the core behavioral effects and costs.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main action ('Subscribe a wallet or entity for 30-day continuous monitoring'), and every sentence contributes useful information: duration, alert behavior, webhook option, and cost. No redundant or filler content.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose and key behaviors but omits details about the response format (e.g., subscription ID, status object) and post-subscription lifecycle (cancellation, renewal). It also does not mention whether a subscription can be extended or if there are prerequisites. These gaps make it only moderately complete for a non-trivial subscription tool.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters accurately. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implicitly clarifying that 'value' is the target to monitor and webhook_url is for notifications. It does not explain chain or label beyond their existing schema descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Subscribe' with a specific resource ('a wallet or entity') and a defined scope ('30-day continuous monitoring'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like monitor_check (which implies status checking) and compliance_wallet (which likely does one-time checks) by emphasizing ongoing monitoring and alerting.

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 this tool: for continuous 30-day monitoring with alerting on blacklist/status changes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use it, but the ongoing vs. one-time distinction is implicit in the wording, giving enough guidance without explicit exclusion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses core behavior (traverses graph, screens entities, produces composite scoring) and adds the cost per use ($0.015 USDC via x402). However, it does not mention whether it is read-only, potential response size, or any side effects beyond cost. The basic operational behavior is described, but not deeply.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and outputs; the second adds value proposition and cost. No wasted words, and the structure is efficient.

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 tool is moderately complex (graph traversal, scoring), and the description covers its main output (risk network map with composite scoring) without an output schema. It does not explain depth nuances or data sources, but given the schema covers parameters and the description gives a clear overview, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Minor gap: no mention of alternatives or when to use simpler tools.

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% for both parameters (query and depth). The description adds no additional parameter explanation, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions and defaults. The description's mention of 'traverses entity relation graph' indirectly ties to depth, but this is not explicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'finds all watchlist hits, traverses entity relation graph, screens connected entities, produces risk network map.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_watchlist (simple watchlist check) and compliance_wallet_entity (entity-wallet linkage) by specifying the graph traversal and network map output.

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 usage by explaining it 'replaces 10-20 API calls + manual graph analysis,' which suggests when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives for simpler checks. The use case is clear but not as directly contrasted as ideal.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is valuable. However, it does not describe return format, rate limits, or behavior on invalid inputs, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds the cost detail without fluff. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool is low in complexity, but with no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., object structure, data types). The schema covers the parameter, but the response shape remains unspecified, which could cause uncertainty for an agent.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'index', including valid values and semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get SEMDEX and SEM indices from Stock Exchange of Mauritius.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource (Mauritian stock indices), distinguishing it from sibling tools like forex_rates and compliance_wallet. The mention of the exchange adds useful context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, alternative tools, or specific conditions. The usage is only implied by the purpose, with no explicit direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral insight. It discloses the tool's composite nature, cost ($0.008 USDC), and the type of output (PROCEED/REVIEW/FLAG/BLOCK recommendation). The actions described ('checks', 'evaluates', 'provides') imply a read-only screening operation, which is transparent enough for an AI agent, though it does not mention potential edge cases or failure modes.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core function, then add value and cost information. Every clause adds useful context without wordiness, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and key trade-offs.

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 tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description provides only a high-level view of the return value (the recommendation) and mentions the forex rate but not the full response structure. It also doesn't specify how optional parameters affect behavior. This is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent needing to interpret results or handle missing inputs.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema—it references concepts like 'sender + receiver' and 'forex corridor rate' that map to existing parameters, but does not elaborate on formats, defaults, or dependencies. The schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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: 'Cross-border transaction pre-screening' with specific actions (checks watchlists, evaluates jurisdiction risk, provides forex rate, returns recommendation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_watchlist or forex_rates by combining multiple capabilities into a single pre-screen, explicitly noting it 'Replaces 6 API calls.'

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 'Replaces 6 API calls' strongly implies when to use this tool: when a comprehensive pre-screening is needed instead of calling individual compliance/forex tools separately. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for specific sub-tasks, leaving some room for interpretation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the output structure (structured compliance packet with unique packetId), the verifiability aspect, and the exact cost with payment method (x402), which is valuable behavioral context. It doesn't cover error cases or side effects, but the provided details go well beyond a minimal description.

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?

Three sentences, each delivering distinct information: purpose and scope, output and verification, and cost. No fluff, front-loaded with the core function. Excellent use of space.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the core output (structure and packetId), cost, and the dual-party scope. It doesn't mention prerequisites, threshold behavior, or failure modes, but for a compliance screening tool the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it reinforces that both originator and beneficiary fields are screened. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a specific verb ('screens') and resource ('both originator and beneficiary wallets, entity names, and jurisdictions') in one call, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely handle single-wallet or single-entity checks. It also identifies the FATF R16 context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use it ('FATF R16 Travel Rule compliance') and emphasizes the one-call comprehensive screening, which signals it over more granular sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the $0.001 USDC cost via x402, which is crucial behavioral context, and clarifies data source ('all Mauritius Met Service stations'). However, it does not mention error handling, return format, or read-only nature explicitly, but cost disclosure adds significant value beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that includes both the action and the unique cost context. No redundant information, every word 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and cost. However, it does not describe the return structure or units of weather data, which could leave the agent uncertain about what data it will receive. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not excellent.

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 input schema already fully describes the single optional parameter (station) with examples and clear omission behavior. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the scope ('all stations'), so 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Get current weather' from 'all Mauritius Met Service stations'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings, none of which are weather-related, and omitting the station returns all stations.

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 usage for current weather in Mauritius but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. With no weather-related siblings, the context is clear via the description itself, but lacks explicit guidance.

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