filter_red_flags

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool performs exact matching, not ranked search; defines how category, subjects, and typology_family interact; provides country code translation rules; and notes pagination. It also mentions response includes display hints and markdown_table. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 relatively long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, parameter explanations, pagination, country codes, alternative tool. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Slight wordiness in examples could be trimmed but overall effective.

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?

With 20 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers the most critical aspects (core parameters, pagination, output format). It assumes an output schema exists, which handles return values. While not exhaustive for every parameter, it provides enough context for correct usage of the tool's main features.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains key parameters (category, subjects, typology_family, regulator_jurisdiction, geographic_footprints) with examples and contrasts. However, many parameters (limit, cursor, detail, regulator, source_id, risk_level, etc.) are not mentioned, leaving gaps. It adds value for the most important ones but is not complete.

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 'Return AML red flags for exact metadata criteria without ranked relevance search,' clearly stating the verb ('Return'), resource ('AML red flags'), and distinguishing it from the sibling tool search_red_flags. It is specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly provides usage scenarios ('Use this for exact metadata requests...') and gives concrete examples (e.g., 'high-risk depository structuring red flags'). It also states when to use the alternative tool ('Use search_red_flags instead for open-ended relevance questions') and covers pagination behavior with next_cursor. This is comprehensive guidance.

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