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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: traversal depth, specific sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, EU, UN, UK OFSI), return structure (chain, sanctions status, LEI lapse, verdict, FATF attestation). No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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, the description covers the purpose, methodology, output structure, and compliance use cases. It mentions all key return fields (chain, status, flags, verdict, attestation). The output schema exists, so the description does not need to repeat every field.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (lei, deep). The description adds context by explaining the 'deep' parameter's effect (3-level vs. direct+ultimate) and implying the lei format. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 traces the beneficial ownership chain up to 3 levels deep and screens nodes against sanctions lists. It specifies the verb 'trace' and the resource 'beneficial ownership chain', and distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance.pep_screen by focusing on UBO chain and sanctions.

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 explicitly lists required use cases: correspondent banking due diligence, FATF R.12/13 UBO identification, and MiCA Article 72 risk management. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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