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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that the tool flags specific red flags, returns go/no-go signals, and provides safe-payment rules. It clearly implies a read-only screening behavior rather than an action like sending a wire. It does not disclose limitations such as reliance on self-reported inputs, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 cover purpose, timing, flag criteria, output, and usage trigger with no wasted words. The most important constraint, using it before sending a deposit, is front-loaded.

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 straightforward screening tool with an output schema and five optional inputs, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the trigger condition, key input semantics, and return shape. Minor gaps are the exact role of contract_ok and the precise safe-payment rules, but these are partially addressed by the defaults and the output schema.

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 no parameter descriptions, but the description maps four of the five parameters to named red flags: pay_to_personal, payee_matches_contract, urgent_account_change, and deposit_pct with the '>30%' threshold. The contract_ok parameter is not explained, and the 'industry norm' reference is not quantified, so the compensation is strong but not complete.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('Chinese supplier payment arrangement') and narrows scope to wire-fraud red flags before sending a deposit. It enumerates concrete flags and says it returns go/no-go signals, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like verify_supplier or landed_cost_calc.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use whenever a buyer is about to wire money to China.' It also states timing with 'BEFORE sending a deposit.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, so it stops 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.