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.