Start AML Report (Async)

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description carries the burden. It fully discloses the async nature, immediate return with pending status, background processing, polling requirements, success/failure states, auditable report storage for 60 months, and legal basis (Hvitvaskingsloven §35). No contradictions 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?

Three sentences deliver complete information: the action and async behavior, polling instructions with statuses, and usage alternatives plus a regulatory retention note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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?

The description covers all necessary context: async operation, polling workflow, when to prefer over `get_aml_score`, parallel screening use case, and report retention. The output schema exists to define return values, so the description does not need to do so. The sibling list confirms `get_aml_report` exists, aligning with the polling reference.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both `orgnr` (9-digit Norwegian organization number) and `purpose` (Purpose of screening — recorded for audit trail). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce the audit purpose context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Start generating an AML risk report ASYNCHRONOUSLY for a Norwegian company'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing `get_aml_score` as the synchronous alternative and `get_aml_report` for polling, making the tool's unique role evident.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of `get_aml_score` for large/complex ownership structures that may otherwise time out, or to start many screenings in parallel.' It also provides the polling workflow with `get_aml_report`, including status handling and how to interpret results.

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