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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool delegates to AMLOracle and uses Wikidata, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur, or what the response looks like. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, focused sentence that conveys the purpose, data source, and relevant context without any filler words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description gives enough context for when to use the tool and mentions the external delegation, but because there is no output schema, it should ideally describe the return format or output. It also lacks usage exclusions. The low complexity and clear purpose keep it from being lower.

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 straightforward descriptions ('Person name' and 'Optional ISO country code'). The tool description itself adds no further parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a PEP check via Wikidata and delegates to AMLOracle. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools like sanctions screening or adverse media checks.

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?

It provides clear context by stating the tool is 'Relevant for prediction markets where reported traders overlap with political figures.' However, it stops at context and does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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