get_compliance_data

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data sources checked (sanctions lists, PEP databases) and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about what a screening produces — match/no-match, risk flags, confidence — or about cost, rate limits, or coverage of lists.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped with the specific data sources screened. Nothing extraneous.

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?

For a one-parameter tool the input side is fully covered by the schema, and the description names the screening sources. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent has no idea what the response contains or how to interpret a screening result.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the Swedish organisation number format and examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies that the company is identified by that number and adds no syntax or constraint details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Screen a company against sanctions lists and PEP databases' — which is far more concrete than the vague tool name 'get_compliance_data'. No sibling tool performs compliance screening, so it is implicitly distinguishable, but the description never explicitly separates it from lookup_company.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The highly specific purpose (sanctions/PEP screening) makes the intended use case inferable, but the agent must reason about it rather than being told.

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