AML / PEP Screening

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld hints. The description adds value by disclosing PII sensitivity, DPA requirement, 60-month audit logging, rate limiting, and return structure details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph with clear sentences. It front-loads the main action and then lists constraints. No redundant sentences, but slightly longer than ideal.

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 no output schema, the description covers return structure, compliance, rate limits, and parameter defaults. It omits error handling or no-match behavior, but is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 40% (only name and purpose have descriptions). The description explains the purpose parameter's compliance role and the default min_match_ratio, but does not clarify birth_year or kategori. Some value added but incomplete.

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 screens a person's name against sanctions (OFAC, EU, UN) and PEP lists, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like firmaradar_get_aml_score, which provides a risk score rather than a screening.

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 context on when to use the tool: compliance-critical, requires DPA, legitimate purpose, and mentions rate limits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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