kyt_generate_sar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that the tool returns plain text, is for review, and explicitly notes it is decision-support, not auto-filing, which clarifies side effects and responsibility. This is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, and the second sentence adds a critical responsibility caveat. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (plain text), its purpose, and the compliance responsibility. It does not detail error handling or invalid inputs, but these are minor for such a straightforward generation tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (case_id) with a description, and the tool description only restates 'for a case' without adding new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Generate', the resource 'Suspicious Activity Report draft for a case', and adds specificity with 'FinCEN-aligned' and 'BSA E-Filing System'. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like kyt_screen_wallet or kyt_lookup_intel, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for generating SAR drafts but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from other case-related tools.

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