Get Company AML Risk Score

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds critical context: the tool generates an auditable AML report stored for 60 months per Norwegian law, which is a notable side-effect beyond simple retrieval.

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?

Three sentences front-loading the most important information (score structure, usage guidance, behavioral note). No extraneous text.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently outlines the output structure (score, level, factor breakdown) and mentions the audit report. Could be slightly more detailed about the factor breakdown format, but it's adequate.

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 100%, so the parameters (orgnr and purpose) are fully defined in the schema. The description only reiterates the audit trail for purpose, adding no new semantics.

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?

Clearly states it obtains a structured AML risk score with numeric range and categories, and distinguishes itself from sibling tool `check_aml_pep` which returns binary flags.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (when a calculated risk score with reasoning is needed) and when to use the alternative `check_aml_pep` (for binary match data). Complements the sibling tool.

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