check_compliance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses: informational only, checks performed, return fields (risk_score, flags, recommended_action), cost (0.02 USDC), and that it is not regulated. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (use when, not for, checks, returns, cost). Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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?

Tool is moderately complex (multiple checks, return fields, cost). Description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, output structure, and cost. No gaps given the context.

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% with a simple string parameter iban. Description adds no extra semantics beyond schema; but baseline for high coverage is 3.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Run a full pre-flight compliance check on an IBAN for SEPA/cross-border payments.' It distinguishes from siblings like validate_iban and batch_validate_iban by focusing on risk triage, sanctions, and payment readiness, not just IBAN structure.

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 lists when to use (e.g., user about to send payment, asks if IBAN safe) and when not to use (not regulated AML/CFT; directs to Refinitiv, Acuris, ComplyAdvantage for regulated screening).

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