Compliance Check

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for added behavioral context is satisfied amply. The description discloses the material limitation that sanctions screening is at the BANK/BIC8 level and does not screen beneficiary names, and it states the cost (0.02 USDC) and the exact set of checks performed. This goes well beyond the 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 long but every section earns its place: USE WHEN, regulatory disclaimer, SCOPE limitation, CHECKS, RETURNS, and COST. It is front-loaded with the action and use case, and the structured format makes the information easy to parse without 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?

For a compliance tool that has one parameter, an output schema, and meaningful limitations, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, when not to use it, what it checks, what it returns, its bank-level scope limitation, its cost, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'iban' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds useful context about what the check covers and returns, but it does not add parameter-level format, normalization, or validation semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a full pre-flight compliance check on an IBAN before sending a SEPA / cross-border payment.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_iban by enumerating the additional compliance checks (sanctions, reachability, VoP, risk score) and noting that it returns validate_iban fields plus a compliance object.

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 USE WHEN section gives explicit triggering scenarios such as payment risk triage, sanctions screening requests, SEPA Instant reachability questions, and numeric risk score needs. It also explicitly warns that this is NOT a regulated AML/CFT product and names alternatives (Refinitiv, Acuris, ComplyAdvantage), giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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