kyb_verify_business

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It mentions 'lookup and AML risk profile' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only nature), required permissions, rate limits, or data source limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with the acronym expansion and scope. However, it could benefit from slight restructuring to improve readability and emphasis on key actions.

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 tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to properly use parameters. Additional context is needed for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no detail about the two required parameters ('country' and 'identifier'). It does not specify expected formats, allowed values, or examples, leaving the agent unable to construct valid inputs accurately.

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 is a Know Your Business tool for corporate registry lookup and AML risk profiling, specifying the resource (corporate registry) and geographic scope (EU and Australian companies). This differentiates it from sibling tools like kyb_verify_agent (likely an agent version) and other unrelated tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or use cases. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and brief description alone.

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