post_v1_safety_check_deep

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: full forensic workup, cross-chain, multi-language, detailed reasoning trace, and price. However, it does not mention response format, side effects, or rate limits, but given the tool's nature as a one-shot investigation, this is acceptable.

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 very concise: two sentences plus price and category. It front-loads the key purpose ('Carbon-Guard Deep Investigation'), then lists features, use cases, and cost. No redundant information, every sentence 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the tool's role and when to use it compared to siblings. It mentions the key features (cross-chain, multi-language, reasoning trace) and use cases. However, it could briefly hint at the output nature (e.g., risk score report) but is still fairly complete.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-level details, but baseline for 0 params is 4. The description compensates by explaining the tool's purpose and what it does, which is sufficient for parameterless tools.

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 is a 'full forensic workup for high-stakes decisions' with 'broad cross-chain checks, multi-language coverage, and a detailed reasoning trace'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'post_v1_safety_check_standard' by explicitly being a 'deep investigation' for more critical use cases.

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 specifies when to use: 'For large transfers, serious counterparty due-diligence, and fraud investigations where being wrong is expensive.' It implies that for less critical situations, the standard check would be more appropriate, providing clear context.

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