classify_red_flag_request

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns one route and recommended next tool, but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: first for purpose, second for usage guidance. No redundant or superfluous information. Highly efficient.

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 10 parameters, no schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown), the description provides purpose and usage but omits parameter semantics and behavioral nuances. It is moderately complete for a classification tool but leaves gaps.

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 0%; the description does not explain individual parameters beyond the general notion of query content. The many optional parameters (limit, category, subjects, etc.) are not described, forcing reliance on schema enums alone.

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 the tool's purpose: to classify ambiguous AML red flag requests and return a route with recommended next tool. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use (ambiguous requests) and when to skip (specific filters or concrete scenario).

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 provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidelines: 'Use it for ambiguous requests; skip it when the user already gives specific metadata filters or a concrete scenario.' This is clear and actionable.

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