check_redflags

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it is only pattern recognition and that a hit is an escalation signal, not a final verdict – useful context. However, it omits any mention of side effects, determinism, or whether it is read-only, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output, and the second adds a critical caveat. Extremely 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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain how inputs map to the verdict, what the verdict values mean, or any edge cases. It gives the output categories but not the logic or input semantics. The tool is simple in concept but the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of any of the 11 parameters (e.g., refuses_video, domain_age_days). It only vaguely references 'customer/supplier profile' without connecting it to the actual inputs. The description completely fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a clear purpose: a unified red flag rule engine that evaluates customer/supplier profiles and produces clear/review/block verdicts. It explicitly says it only does pattern recognition, distinguishing it from final judgment tools. This is a specific verb (check) plus resource (red flags) and clearly separates from research or search siblings.

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 implies usage when a customer/supplier profile is available and you want to detect red flags, but it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it. It does clarify that hits mean escalation, not final determination, which helps interpretation but not selection among siblings.

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