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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool is not yet served, that calling it records a requirement, and that it returns 'not-covered'. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know before invoking the tool.

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-loads the critical 'Roadmap probe, not yet served' warning, and contains no wasted text. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation behavior.

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 low-complexity roadmap probe with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool would do, that it is not yet available, and what happens when called. No critical information is missing for an agent to make the right decision.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 intended resource and scope: a single-call KYB verdict covering existence, active status, officers, PSC, sanctions, and insolvency. It also immediately qualifies that this is a roadmap probe, not a served capability, which prevents misselection. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Roadmap probe, not yet served' gives clear usage context and effectively warns the agent not to rely on it for real KYB checks. 'Calling records the requirement and returns not-covered' further clarifies the outcome of invocation. However, it does not explicitly route the agent to the individual sibling tools that currently provide these checks.

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