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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It says 'validates' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens on failure, return format, required permissions, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a compliance 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-loaded with the primary purpose and zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description needed to explain what the check returns, what inputs are required beyond amount, and how results are interpreted. It only states the high-level validation purpose, leaving too much unspecified for a 4-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 covers originator and beneficiary descriptions but leaves amount and currency undocumented. The description adds context by tying these entities to Travel Rule requirements, but it does not explain the role of amount or currency, so it only partially compensates for the 50% 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check FATF Travel Rule compliance for a payment.' It also clarifies the validation against ISO 20022 field mappings, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sanctions_screen_iso and mica_cross_check.

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 implies use for travel rule compliance checks, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as sanctions or MICA checks, so it falls 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.