Customer Risk Rating Engine

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral context: browser-based, client-side only, zero PII, zero network, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies execution environment.

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 packed with information but has some redundancy (e.g., 'zero PII' mentioned twice). It front-loads the purpose and is structured, but could be more concise.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not specify return values or effects. For a client-side widget tool, the agent needs to know what the tool returns or renders, which is missing.

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 single parameter 'inputs' is described in schema as a map. The description explains it is used for 'prefill' via AIN Bridge, adding functional meaning beyond the schema's property definition.

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 'Score' and the resource 'KYC risk across six FATF dimensions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its domain (risk scoring vs. mandate building, scanning, etc.).

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 the tool is a client-side widget for risk scoring but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is inferred but not directly guided.

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