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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is marked 'draft_for_review' and that 'PredictionGuard does not submit SARs directly,' which is key behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or failure modes, but the draft/non-submission caveat is significant.

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 three sentences with no padding. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers supported formats, inputs, behavior, and output status efficiently. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow, jurisdiction options, and output format. It does not describe the exact structure of the generated markdown report or edge-case behavior, but the high schema coverage compensates for most omissions.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the filing_jurisdiction enum values ('FATF-aligned STR', 'Form 111 structure', 'German FIU draft') and by grouping the key inputs (subject, market, activity window, signals, evidence), which helps the agent understand how to populate parameters 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 it 'Generates a draft Suspicious Activity Report (SAR/STR) from structured inputs' and names the supported jurisdictions (EU_GENERIC, US_FINCEN, DE_goAML). This specific verb+resource, combined with the output type, distinguishes it from the sibling scan/analysis tools.

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 downstream usage by referencing 'integrity signals' and 'evidence references' from prior tools, and it clarifies the report is a draft for review. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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