aml_overlay

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 mentions the return format but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects. No details on authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 concise with a clear opening line stating purpose. It uses a structured args format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description provides basic context but is insufficient for a novice agent. It does not explain how the output schema integrates with the assessment or how to use the result. The sibling tools are more specific, so this overlay tool's place in the workflow is ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context for 'query' as a regulation ref, identifier, or input data, and for 'api_key' as for Pro+ features. However, the descriptions remain vague and could specify acceptable formats or behaviors.

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 provides an AML overlay for crypto operators under MiCA and 6AMLD regulations, and the return format is described. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and context imply a general assessment tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid it. The description is purely operational.

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