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.