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

The description says the endpoint lets you "create a full kyc request" — a write/POST operation that produces an async request (cf. the check_async_status sibling) — while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. That is a direct contradiction of the declared safety profile. No other behavioral context (auth, rate limits, latency, what the request returns) is added.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the Args block largely repeats what the lead sentence already said (entityType meanings appear twice), and "lastName: lastName of the person" is tautological. It is readable but not tight.

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?

Parameters are adequately covered and no output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However there is no usage context, no indication of the async/polling flow implied by the check_async_status sibling, and the description conflicts with the annotations, leaving the agent unsure how the tool behaves.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: all four parameters are documented, entityType's allowed values are spelled out (I/L/W/VE/AC/NA), and the name-vs-firstName/lastName selection rule is given. It does, however, imply conditional requirements while the schema marks all four params required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("create a full kyc request on a subject") and enumerates the screening categories covered (PEP, adverse media, sanctions, whitelists, etc.), so the agent knows what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling shares the KYC/screening function, so the practical ambiguity is low.

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, nor any prerequisites (account, credits, subject onboarding). The only conditional instruction ("use name for entityType L,W,VE,AC,NA or firstName/lastName for entityType I") is parameter selection, not tool selection.

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