regdata_adverse_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are LLM-classified, include categories, role, severity, provenance, and that false positives are filtered. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects, missing some behavioral traits.

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 comprehensive paragraph that front-loads the purpose and includes key details about output and input guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words.

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's complexity (freeform input, LLM classification, no output schema), the description covers purpose, input method, output details, and a pointer to exact fields. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., data package subscription) and error handling, but overall it is largely 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?

The schema defines only one parameter (maxItems) with a clear description. The description adds value by explaining that the actual query fields are freeform (additionalProperties) and advises using regdata_describe to discover exact fields, compensating for the schema's lack of detail on input fields.

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 identifies the tool as 'Adverse Media Screener' for KYC/AML negative news checks, specifying it screens persons or companies and returns categorized hits. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., registry-specific tools) by focusing on adverse media and due diligence.

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 explains to pass search input as a flat object and suggests using regdata_describe for exact fields if unsure. It states the tool is for KYC/AML due diligence, providing clear context, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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