check_offshore_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It details depth caps, the meaning of depth_capped, the legacy exposed field's limited usefulness, and a concrete anonymous-caller example, giving the agent excellent expectations for edge cases.

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 long and dense, but the complexity of the verdict semantics justifies much of the length. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then walks through states and caveats; however, the measured example and repeated warnings could be tightened without losing value.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values: the chain, flagged hops, verdict states, depth_walked, depth_capped, and legacy exposed. It also covers cap behavior and id sourcing, making the tool usable without additional external documentation.

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?

Even though the schema covers both parameters, the description adds meaningful semantic value: it tells the caller to obtain id via search_entities or lookup_by_identifier, and explains that anonymous callers are capped at 2 hops regardless of max_depth. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Walk the ownership chain upward from an entity and flag...', which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like trace_ownership_path or get_sanctions by emphasizing the offshore/sanctions-secrecy verdict semantics.

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 provides strong interpretive guidance, such as 'BRANCH ON verdict, NOT on exposed', and warns against promoting checked_full_clean to 'no offshore exposure' without quoting depth_walked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context for appropriate use is clear.

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