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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the content (specific milestones and limits) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, whether it calculates anything, or if any authentication or side effects exist. The description is more of a content summary than a behavioral contract.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose ('AMLR compliance milestones') and then packs key details efficiently. There is zero fluff or repetition, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's domain and content.

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 simple 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of the content. However, it does not explain what the tool actually returns (e.g., a list, object, plain text) or how the milestones are presented. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks explicit return-value expectations.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (meaning nothing is undocumented). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none, but it does provide context about the data returned, which helps set expectations.

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 identifies the tool as providing 'AMLR compliance milestones' and even gives key examples (1 July 2026, €10k cash limit, crypto Travel Rule €0). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', so the exact action is implied rather than stated. It is distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on screening and checks, whereas this one is about regulatory calendar dates.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. Context from sibling names suggests it is for compliance milestones, but the description itself offers no explicit direction on when to select it.

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